Praise for report

Press, 25 July 1986, Page 2

Praise for report

PA Wellington The director of the Consumers Institute, Mr Dick Smithies, said the Toxic Substances Board had shown a “masterly grasp of the issue” in recommending a ban on tobacco advertising.

The Tobacco Institute said it was disturbed that it had not been consulted by- the board. The executive director, Mr Michael Thompson, said the recommendation ignored international evidence which clearly showed that bans of the type proposed did not reduce smoking.

Mr Smithies said he was “delighted” with the board’s report, which he said contained everything the institute asked for when it instigated the inquiry last October.

“The board has shown very clearly that it would be a mistake to just take the timid step of banning advertisements in newspapers and magazines,” he said. The board showed that the real issue was young people, for whom tobacco and cigarette promotion was a direct threat, Mr Smithies said.

“The banning of advertising is only one of many things needed to get rid of this public health scourge. The Government has been given a very clear mandate by a forthright report that this toxic substance — and toxic means poisonous — must be controlled in the interests of the young people in New Zealand.” Mr Smithies said the report reinforced what New Zealand medical experts had been saying.

Asked if some sports bodies might struggle to survive should the bans become law, he said, “We would point out that one in four people taking up smoking will not survive because of smoking.”

There were other means of promotional income, and Mr Smithies referred to the “breathing space” of until 1988 for sports bodies to find other sponsors.

The institute’s original submission combined a Toxic Substances Act definition of all forms of tobacco as a toxic substance, with regulations which say it is illegal to advertise ‘a toxic substance if it was said or implied that the substance was fit for human consumption. Mr Thompson said the

Tobacco Institute was “very disturbed” it had not been consulted, and had no alternative but to make a representatipn to the Minister of Health. He said the board had assured the institute, after a preliminary discussion, that it would consult the institute and receive its submission.

"Only yesterday they advised us they had abandoned those assurances. We sent them a telex asking on what basis this decision was made,” Mr Thompson said. It was disturbing that a Government advisory board should “recommend restrictions on a legitimate activity of an industry without consulting the industry concerned.” The executive director of the Newspaper Publishers’ Association, Mr Patrick Green, said the board’s report did not take account of overseas evidence.

“Advertising bans don’t affect the consumption of tobacco or cigarettes overseas,” he said. “If the product is legal to sell it should also be legal to advertise.”

Advertising could be helpful in advising the public of the nature of product and their constituent properties. Newpaper publishers had a code for advertising cigarettes similar to that between the Tobacco Institute and the Health Department. This restricted advertising aimed at increasing numbers of smokers, consumption rates, and targeting young people, and concentrated on persuading smokers to switch brands.