17192: Hims & Hers & Haphazard Hirings.

 

Oh, look! A Director of Creative Operations opportunity at Hims & Hers.

 

Um, wait a minute…

16616: Supplementing The Ritualistic Awfulness Of Big Pharma.

 

Ritual is in the nutraceutical industry, which is regulated by the FDA differently than the pharmaceutical industry. Nonetheless, the dietary supplements brand creates advertising that’s just as awful as Big Pharma campaigns.

 

15908: Menthol Cigarettes And Smoking Guns…?

 

USA TODAY reported on the FDA’s attempt to ban menthol cigarettes—heavily marketed to Blacks for many decades—which has sparked debates even within the Black community. The publication provided in-depth coverage on the ways that the product has been advertised and promoted, likely with budgets well beyond the standard crumbs allocated to campaigns of color and multicultural advertising agencies. It all exposes yet another form of racist inequity prevalent in Adland that definitely ain’t cool—any way you spell it.

 

Targeted menthol cigarette ads helped lead to high Black usage. Should they be banned?

 

By Tiffany Cusaac-Smith

 

After decades of Big Tobacco advertisements splattered across billboards, tucked inside buses and hung outside corner stores in Black and Latino neighborhoods, Henry McNeil “Mandrake” Brown had seen enough.

 

Using the alias “Mandrake,” Brown started painting over cigarette and alcohol advertisements in his Chicago community in the 1980s and 1990s, according to historians and media archives. He called the advertisements a multipronged practice “to sustain and expand sales to minorities, to women and the poor.”

 

At the same time, a handful of Black leaders and doctors were fighting against an overabundance of these advertisements in African American communities compared with whiter areas. The Rev. Calvin Butts, the pastor of Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, painted over billboards in New York City.

 

Uptown cigarettes, a mentholated brand geared directly to Black consumers — would’ve been tested in Philadelphia, but grassroots opposition and resistance from then-Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Louis Sullivan led R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to cancel those plans in 1990.

 

After the release of director Spike Lee’s “Malcolm X,” a tobacco company created Menthol X, which was booted in 1995 after a significant outcry. Its box featured a large X like the film’s poster and the Pan-African flag colors — black, red, and green, according to newspaper archives.

 

These earlier forms of resistance are, in many ways, fundamental to the Food and Drug Administration’s move to ban the sale of menthol cigarettes. The public can submit comments on the proposed change through Aug. 2, according to the FDA.

 

Over the course of decades, marketing menthol cigarettes to Black people fostered an environment where today, most Black smokers use the product.

 

“The net result of these predatory marketing strategies is the Black community is suffering unfairly and disproportionately from tobacco-related disease,” according to a statement from the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, a health care advisory task force for the caucus.

 

Dr. Alan Blum, director of the University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society, said when it comes to Black people smoking menthols, “advertising works.”

 

“If in Ebony and Jet and billboards and convenience stores the only brands you see advertised are menthol brands, there’s no mystery,” he said.

 

The proposed ban has caused a divide within the Black community. Anti-smoking advocates and many in the medical community who support the ban have pointed out that smoking contributes to cancer, and African Americans are more likely to develop and die of lung cancer.

 

On the other side, some Black clergy, law enforcement groups, and publications — many of whom have received money or advertisement revenue from the tobacco industry — say Black people have the choice to use mentholated products and that banning them could lead to negative interactions with police.

 

Black community divided over proposed menthol ban

 

Tobacco companies began targeting Black consumers in the mid-1960s, chasing after a new urban market created by the Great Migration. They avoided scrutiny in part through lavish donations to Black civic organizations.

 

In 2019, there were more than 18.5 million menthol cigarette smokers, according to the FDA.

 

Between 1980 and 2018, menthol cigarettes were responsible for 157,000 premature deaths and 1.5 million life-years lost among Black people, according to a study from the University of Michigan.

 

Keith Wailoo, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University in New Jersey, said the marketing of menthol products to Black people linked itself to Black identity and aspirations while seeking to avoid backlash from possible white consumers of the product.

 

“It’s not that they (tobacco companies) are earnestly concerned with Black representation in advertisements,” he said. “They’re concerned with how the incorporation of Black imagery in ads can help with sales, but not to the extent that it alienates non-Black consumers."

 

In the spring of 1963, Black people represented 19% of the menthol cigarette market, historians and advocates said. Today, nearly 85% of Black smokers use menthol, compared to 30% of white smokers, the FDA said.

 

David Mendez, a lead author of the Michigan study and a health management and policy professor at the university, said menthol cigarettes reduce the irritation and harshness of smoking through their smooth, minty flavor profile.

 

Because the cigarette user does not cough or feel the less healthy aspects of smoking, they are less inclined to quit, he said. Menthol also works with nicotine to enhance nicotine’s addictive effects.

 

Banning menthol will save thousands of lives, Mendez said.

 

“This is the closest we have been,” Mendez said of the proposed prohibition.

 

Yet the ban has seen some resistance from some tobacco companies and others.

 

“We strongly believe that there are more effective routes to deliver tobacco harm reduction than banning menthol in cigarettes,” R.J. Reynolds said in a statement to a request for comment.

 

Diane Goldstein, executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, said banning menthols is another iteration of the war on drugs, which disproportionately has harmed Black people. LEAP is an organization comprised of prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement that advocates for criminal justice and drug policy reforms.

 

“When we ban a substance, we don’t end its use,” she said. “We just shift those profits from licensed, taxpaying shopkeepers to criminal organizations, leading to easier access for children, unregulated and impure products for consumers, and unnecessary diversions from violent crime for police.”

 

In announcing the proposed ban, the FDA said it wouldn’t enforce the prohibition against individual users of menthol products. Instead, an implemented ban would focus its enforcement on retailers, distributors and others.

 

“If these proposed rules are finalized and implemented, FDA enforcement will only address manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, importers and retailers who manufacture, distribute, or sell such products within the U.S. that are not in compliance with applicable requirements,” a statement read.

 

The FDA said banning menthol would help prevent children from becoming the next generation of smokers and helps adult smokers quit.

 

Anti-smoking organizations said the talking points of LEAP and some other Black organizations use Black anxieties around hostile police encounters to get around regulating the market.

 

In the turbulence of the civil rights movement, tobacco companies hired Black workers when some companies wouldn’t. They supported and contributed to cultural events such as the Kool Jazz Festival, a series of concerts targeting African American consumers, according to Stanford University in California.

 

 

In many advertisements, tobacco companies portrayed Black people in a positive light.

 

Tobacco companies also placed ads in Black-owned newspapers and magazines, providing needed advertisement revenue for the outlets.

 

“They started getting our figures, our actors, our sports figures, and the like. They started coming into our communities. And the real thing is that they did they understood our history and culture,” said Delmonte Jefferson, executive director of The Center for Black Health & Equity, a health organization benefiting Black people that is anti-menthol products.

 

“They supported everything, and they got our loyalty,” he said. “And as a result, they got our death.”

 

Menthol ads went after Black consumers for decades

 

“Feel the extra coolness in your throat,” read one 1964 cigarette advertisement featuring a handsome Black couple with Kool menthol cigarettes lodged in their hands as they stood in an oasis.

 

The ad was one of many that came amid the Great Migration of Black people out of the American South and into cities such as New York and Chicago and the civil rights movement, historians say. Medical research linking cigarettes to cancer and other ailments also pushed many people to reconsider smoking, forcing tobacco companies to expand their outreach in search of new consumers.

 

Menthol cigarettes were created by Lloyd “Spud” Hughes in the 1920s when he mixed menthol and cigarettes. For the first few decades of the product’s existence, it was marketed as a “healthier” cigarette.

 

Marketers went to corner stores in Black neighborhoods to track the progress of cigarette sales. They asked workers why they had chosen to invest with a particular cigarette brand.

 

In St. Louis, the tobacco industry recognized that Black men didn’t watch television at the same levels as their white counterparts in the 1960s, according to “Pushing Cool: Big Tobacco, Racial Marketing, and the Untold Story of the Menthol Cigarette.”

 

Through market research, consultants recognized Black consumers would listen to trusted sources in their community —- bellhops, barbers, etc. Consultants then secretly gave menthol cigarettes to those figures, who then started dispersing them in their communities, the book said.

 

Segregation in cities such as Detroit, New York and Philadelphia also allowed tobacco companies to place ads in Black neighborhoods without fear of white backlash, historians say.

 

“When you put it all together, the tobacco industry has given literally millions of dollars to black, civic, religious, political, educational organizations in our community. So, it’s essentially been a full-court press,” said Phillip Gardiner, co-chair of the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, a California-based organization that supports a national menthol ban.

 

By the time Tiffany Glover, 45, started smoking, the pathway had been set. Both of her parents smoked cigarettes, though not menthol cigarettes.

 

Her journey began as a sophomore in college, just a few years after her mother’s death from lung cancer in 1994.

 

Glover recalls the pull of menthols. On one end, she saw cigarette marketing in leading Black publications, plus they were a few dollars cheaper than non-menthol cigarettes. Glover said she felt that she needed them to fit in, “wanting to be cool.”

 

Peers at the time told her, “You need to smoke menthols. They taste better.”

 

This confluence soon led her to smoke about a pack of Newport menthol cigarettes daily.

 

“It just became a full-blown addiction,” said Glover, a math teacher in Natchitoches, Louisiana. “I was really starting to really desire the smoking. The peer stuff didn’t matter anymore. I wanted to smoke.”

 

‘I can’t breathe’

 

Billboards and other advertisements in Black communities were removed because of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, the largest civil litigation settlement in the nation’s history at the time.

 

Seven tobacco companies agreed to pay more than $200 billion to 46 states, Washington, D.C., and several territories. The money was set aside as compensation for taxpayer money used in tobacco-related ailments and losses to local economies, according to the agreement.

 

The agreement also removed tobacco advertising that included cartoons, as well as those geared to people under 18. The agreement also banned the use of cigarette advertisements on merchandise.

 

In the intervening years, smoking levels have decreased, but menthol still has a problematic hold on Black Americans. States such as Massachusetts and California, as well as Washington, D.C., have banned menthol cigarettes, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy organization seeking to reduce tobacco use.

 

Cities such as Chicago and Jersey City are among the dozens that have restricted the sale of menthol products, according to the organization.

 

In 2009, the Obama administration banned flavored cigarettes but left off tobacco and menthol.

 

Groups opposed to the menthol bans have pointed to the death of Eric Garner, who was killed in a fatal confrontation with the New York City Police Department after being accused of selling untaxed cigarettes known as loosies. They worry more Black people will be punished for selling cigarettes under a ban.

 

The Rev. Al Sharpton said in a letter to Susan Rice, White House domestic policy advisor, that a menthol cigarette ban could mean that some economically disadvantaged smokers might try to create homemade menthol cigarettes. Sharpton’s organization has taken money from the tobacco industry.

 

Wailoo, the Princeton professor, said Garner’s plea of “I can’t breathe” in some ways mirrors the experience of thousands of Black people who have died because of tobacco usage.

 

“It’s been a slow and deliberate process of constraining people’s lungs, constraining their health, and it leads exactly to the same place: I can’t breathe. The only difference is that, in the case of George Floyd, in the case of Eric Garner, we can see this happens in a couple of minutes,” he said. “And we can see who the culprit is that is driving the death of those young men. In the case of the menthol cigarette, it happens over decades.”

 

For Glover, the Louisiana teacher, her reckoning around cigarettes came around a decade ago. Her eldest daughter, then 16, was the same age as when Glover lost her mother to lung cancer. If she didn’t quit, Glover thought, she might not be there for her as she entered adulthood.

 

“If you don’t quit smoking, you’re not going to be able to get the chance to see what it’s like,” she thought to herself.

 

At that thought, she decided to put down the habit, removing ashtrays from her house and using nicotine patches and other methods.

 

Loved ones and friends coached her on, even waiting with her in restaurant parking lots as she used chewing gum to fight the urge to have a cigarette after a meal.

 

After she quit, her eldest daughter expressed relief that she had stopped — a surprise to Glover because she thought her daughter had no opinion on the matter.

 

As for the menthol cigarette ban, she said, the more lives saved, the better.

15547: No Serious Side Effects For Big Pharma…?

When pharmaceutical companies advertise their products, the copy is strictly scrutinized and dictated by FDA regulators. Yet for self-promotional messages, it seems like any propagandistic puffery flies.

12434: No Más Salt, Taco Bell!

USA TODAY reported on the quiet campaign from Taco Bell to reduce the salt in menu items. It certainly is a quiet campaign when viewed alongside loud promotions for food-like stuff featuring Doritos and Fritos.

“We have done the right thing. We have done the moral thing,” proclaimed Taco Bell CEO Greg Creed. “What we haven’t done is toot our horn. No one out there suspects we have done it because we haven’t changed the taste.” Hmmm. There are lots of contradictions in Creed’s statement. The CEO said Taco Bell didn’t “toot our horn,” which implies being humble; yet he also said, “No one out there suspects…” which implies being deceitful. Is it possible to do “the moral thing” without being honest? Plus, why act with such grandiosity when “the right thing” is essentially conforming to recommended standards? Creed admits it’s tough for fast feeders to sell healthy food and make a profit. On the flipside, why should places like Taco Bell be allowed to knowingly sell unhealthy food without facing public and even legal scrutiny?

The Fourth Meal fans will undoubtedly argue that people have the inalienable right to consume whatever they wish—oblivious to the scientific evidence proving salt is addictive. Fast-food restaurants that offer healthy menu items in addition to the unhealthy fare are not much different than Big Tobacco financing anti-smoking campaigns and Big Booze financing drunk-driving campaigns. Indeed, at some point, Taco Bell and its peers should be forced to develop healthy eating campaigns—and the messages better not be quiet.

Taco Bell reduces salt in quiet campaign

By Jere Downs, The (Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Taco Bell’s menu is packing less salt, 15 percent less on average since 2009, the result of a stealthy campaign by Yum! Brands CEO Greg Creed.

“We have done the right thing. We have done the moral thing,” Creed said when asked how Yum! is responding to consumer demand for healthier fare. “What we haven’t done is toot our horn. No one out there suspects we have done it because we haven’t changed the taste.”

Taco Bell’s sodium reduction was part of a Yum effort to make 15 percent of its menu items at the chain — as well as at Pizza Hut and KFC — conform to recommended mealtime limits for it, sugar and fats by the end of the year.

And by 2020, Yum wants 20 percent of its menu items to land at or below the limits, chief nutrition officer Jonathan Blum said. The idea is that if consumers eat three meals per day, one of those three meals at a KFC, Taco Bell or Pizza Hut can satisfy one third of the recommended daily allowances.

The initiative “is a bold goal across the globe,” Blum said, adding that the objective is to reduce salt without losing flavor or market share.

“We don’t want it to be perceptible,” he said. “We just want to improve ingredients.”

The increasing public debate about the health consequences of fast food appears to be driving sodium down at other chains. At McDonald’s, for instance, the Big Mac and Quarter Pounder with Cheese sandwiches have dropped their sodium levels between 7 percent and 8 percent, respectively, since 2011. Each McDonald’s burger contains five salt packets each, at 960 and 1,100 milligrams respectively.

But critics say that in some instances, Taco Bell’s efforts fall short. Even though the Steak Burrito Supreme now stands at 1,090 milligrams of sodium instead of 1,340, that much salt in a single blast is still not good for you, said Michael Jacobson, co-founder and executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The Steak Burrito Supreme “has a long way to go to get to a healthy level,” Jacobson said.

The human body requires just 200 milligrams of sodium daily to balance electrolytes and other bodily functions, according to the American Heart Association. But Americans take in 3,463 milligrams of sodium daily, or about 1½ teaspoons of salt, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Yum’s nutrition goals for 2015 and 2020 are “not terribly ambitious,” Jacobson added. “Couldn’t a restaurant have at least half of its products be reasonably healthy?

“At least nutrition is on their radar screen,” he said, adding Taco Bell’s progress is an example of “creeping awareness into the sector.”

Creed, who became Yum’s CEO following a long stint as Taco Bell’s chief, said consumers may shun foods if they are advertised as low salt or otherwise good for you.

“People don’t want the taste to change,” Creed said in an interview this month. “If I came out and said ‘new low sodium Taco Bell,’ some people will think it will taste like you know what, and they are not going to come.”

And for most diners at a Louisville-area Taco Bell on Tuesday, salt wasn’t a concern.

“I like the Gordita Crunch. The sauce is really good,” said Anthony Gardner, 26, of Radcliffe. “It tastes good, so I eat it.”

“I like the salt,” said his brother, Michael Gardner, 32, adding that the pair eat lunch at Taco Bell three or four times a month. “I will probably care about salt a little later in life.”

Exactly how and where the salt has come off Taco Bell’s menu remains a trade secret. During his tenure at the helm of Taco Bell, Creed said he scrutinized all ingredient categories.

“We pulled sodium out of everything, tortillas, beef, marinade for chicken, fire sauce,” he said. “There is not an ingredient that we haven’t pulled sodium out of.”

The numbers show Taco Bell cut salt by one third in 33 menu items between 2009 to 2015. That includes the Grilled Steak Soft Taco, which has 490 milligrams of sodium, a 31 percent decline from its 710 milligrams in 2009, and the Cheesy Bean & Rice Burrito, which has 490 milligrams of sodium, a 32 percent decrease from 1,370 six years ago.

Foods dramatically reduced in sodium at Taco Bell also seem to have a soft tortilla. They include the Fresco Grilled Steak Soft Taco (440 milligrams of sodium for a 27 percent drop from 600), and the Chicken Burrito, (960 milligrams of sodium, a 24 percent change from 1,260.)

And while overall progress takes place at Taco Bell, some new menu additions go the other way. The Doritos Cheesy Gordita Crunch line, for example, contains nearly 900 milligrams of sodium in each variation.

Blum, Yum’s nutrition chief, said high-sodium items like the Doritos Gorditas at Taco Bell, or other salty fare at KFC or Pizza Hut “are absolutely delicious and products I love to eat.” Consumers can be applauded, he added, “for the choices that they make, as long as they have the information and education about what to consume.”

Nancy Kuppersmith, a registered dietician with University of Louisville Physicians, took a more jaded view. Patients that she treats for obesity, diabetes and heart disease commonly eat fast food for one meal per day, she said. Extra sodium in fast food menus, she said, just makes them crave more than is good for them.

“It makes the food taste better if you put salt on it. It masks other flavors that might not be so good,” Kuppersmith said. “Will sodium stimulate me to eat more so I might buy more? Absolutely.”

Creed said competing against other fast food chains who may not be lowering sodium, means retaining sodium levels in some favorites while also offering a variety for consumers seeking healthier options, Creed said.

That’s why Taco Bell’s more nutrient-dense, and lower-sodium Fresco and Cantina menu options “are not the best-sellers,” Creed said. “But they need to be available.”

“Our customers are demanding it,” he said. “You don’t have to be Einstein to see this whole trend of transparency and authentic and genuine going forward.”

10233: Claritin Clear Bullshit.

From Adweek…

Health Groups to FTC: Claritin Ain’t Candy

Movie tie-in shouldn’t treat OTC treatment like a treat

By Katy Bachman

Public health advocates are charging that Merck’s entertainment product tie-in campaign for children’s Claritin with the movie Madagascar 3 is deceptive and dangerous because it could cause children to confuse medicine with candy.

In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston and 10 other organizations requested today that the agency investigate the campaign.

“Marketing medicine directly to children at all, much less through entertainment tie-ins, is well beyond the pale and is not only inherently unfair, it is downright dangerous,” said Mark Gottlieb, executive director for PHAI.

Coinciding with the release of the Dreamworks movie in June, the tie-in features the movie cartoon characters on packaging, in games, on stickers and in other giveaways for grape-flavored chewable children’s Claritin tablets and grape-flavored over-the-counter allergy syrup. There were also free movie tickets offered with Claritin purchases at many stores. Merck, manufacturer of the Claritin products, also used its “Children’s Claritin Mom Crew” to hold Madagascar 3 viewing parties, providing free product samples.

The 11 groups charge that the campaign violates a precedent set by the FTC in 1977 when it ruled that Spider-Man could not be used to market vitamins directly to children, finding the campaign “unfair and deceptive.”

“The same holds true, if not more so, with respect to OTC drugs,” wrote Cara Wilking, PHAI’s senior staff attorney.

A Merck spokeswoman said the company was currently reviewing the complaint. “We advertise in appropriate venues to reach parents and not directly to reach children themselves,” said Merck’s Kelley Dougherty.

Other groups who signed the letter were Berkeley Media Studies Group, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Center for Digital Democracy, ChangeLab Solutions, Corporate Accountability International, Eat Drink Politics, Public Citizen, The Public Good Law Center, Public Health Institute and Prevention Institute.

9487: Big Tobacco Wins Again.

Here’s another example showing why Occupy Wall Street protestors are wasting their time.

Cigarette Warnings Blocked by Court on Free-Speech Grounds

Judge: The Line ‘Seems Quite Clear’

A federal judge blocked new U.S. rules for graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging from taking effect, saying the required text and images may violate tobacco companies’ free speech rights.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington ruled today that ordering tobacco companies, including Lorillard and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., to display images of diseased lungs and a cadaver with chest staples on an autopsy table may “unconstitutionally compel speech.”

Mr. Leon postponed the Sept. 22, 2012, deadline for the regulations to take effect while he reviews the constitutionality of the Food and Drug Administration rule.

“While the line between the constitutionally permissible dissemination of factual information and the impermissible expropriation of a company’s advertising space for government advocacy can be frustratingly blurry, here—where these emotion-provoking images are coupled with text extolling consumers to call the phone number ‘1-800-QUIT’—the line seems quite clear,” Mr. Leon said in his ruling.

Lorillard, R.J. Reynolds, Commonwealth Brands, Liggett Group and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. sued the FDA in August, claiming its mandates for cigarette packages, cartons and advertising violate the First Amendment.

Stephanie Yao, a spokeswoman for the agency, said by email that the agency “does not comment on proposed, pending or ongoing litigation.”

Ronald Milstein, Greensboro, North Carolina-based Lorillard’s senior VP-general counsel, didn’t immediately return telephone messages seeking comment on the ruling.

‘Final Resolution’
”We’re pleased with the judge’s ruling and look forward to the court’s final resolution of the case,” Bryan Hatchell, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc., R.J. Reynolds’s parent, said in an interview.

In an e-mailed statement, Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the Justice Department should appeal Leon’s ruling, claiming it makes it “impossible to implement any effective” warning labels.

“Given the overwhelming evidence of the need for these warnings and the tobacco industry’s own admission of the factual accuracy of the warning statements, we are confident that this decision will not be the last word on the new warnings,” Mr. Myers said.

The FDA regulations require textual warnings as well as certain images to be displayed on the top 50% of the front and back panels of every cigarette package manufactured and distributed in the U.S.

Bloomberg News

9309: ANA + AAF = ASS.

News sources reported the Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation have joined Big Tobacco in the legal fight to oppose new cigarette warning labels being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration. The labels feature graphic images including a smoker’s corpse and diseased lung. Technically, this is old news, as the organizations have publicized support for cigarette makers for many months—and MultiCultClassics has even responded to the corporate hucksterism. This latest press coverage, however, contains a quote worth examining:

“The new cigarette warnings are expressly designed to be propagandistic rather than informative,” wrote the groups who represent hundreds of U.S. companies and thousands of advertising professionals. “If the government can deputize tobacco companies through their product packaging and advertisements to deliver its message, there is no reason it could not do so for other things—and history shows it will not hesitate to do so.”

Regarding the accusations that the labels “are expressly designed to be propagandistic rather than informative,” well, no duh. Yet it’s difficult to understand why Big Tobacco, the ANA and AAF are worried. The FDA has already stated the current “informational” approach doesn’t work. Everyone should know by now, however, that the gruesome stuff doesn’t really dissuade smokers either. For example, anti-smoking campaigns—most of which are funded by Big Tobacco lawsuit settlements and ultimately approved by cigarette makers—always display victims with holes in their throat, corpses and diseased lungs. And it all runs with Big Tobacco’s blessing. Why? Because Big Tobacco realizes it doesn’t adversely affect sales and usage. To suddenly act outraged that such images might appear on cigarette packs is a little disingenuous. Besides, Big Tobacco has constantly generated propaganda while concealing information from the public. So maybe it’s time for the FDA to turn the tables and try different tactics.

Love the paranoia-inducing whine about government ultimately deputizing “other things—and history shows it will not hesitate to do so.” Hey, governmental intervention wouldn’t be necessary if advertisers and their agencies weren’t such a bunch of lying, deceptive assholes—as history has repeatedly shown.

Advertising groups join cigarette label opposition

By Michael Felberbaum, AP Tobacco Writer

RICHMOND, Va. — Two advertising industry groups on Friday joined some of the nation’s largest tobacco companies in opposing new graphic cigarette warning labels that include the sewn-up corpse of a smoker and pictures of diseased lungs.

The groups say the labels infringe on commercial speech and could lead to further government intrusion if unchallenged.

The Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation on Friday filed briefs with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in a lawsuit led by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

The companies sued the Food and Drug Administration last month to block the labels, saying they violate free speech laws, unfairly urge adults to shun their legal products and will cost millions to produce.

A hearing on a preliminary injunction to stop the labels, set to appear on packs next year, is set for Sept. 21, with a decision to come as soon as October.

“The new cigarette warnings are expressly designed to be propagandistic rather than informative,” wrote the groups who represent hundreds of U.S. companies and thousands of advertising professionals. “If the government can deputize tobacco companies through their product packaging and advertisements to deliver its message, there is no reason it could not do so for other things—and history shows it will not hesitate to do so.”

Tobacco companies are increasingly relying on their packaging to build brand loyalty and grab consumers. It’s one of few advertising levers left to pull since the government has curbed their presence in magazines, billboards and TV.

In opposition to the lawsuit, the FDA said last week that the public interest in conveying the dangers of smoking outweighs the companies’ free speech rights. And it said the cost to the companies to incorporate the new graphics is not sufficient to halt the labels.

The federal agency also argued that Congress gave it the authority to require the new labels because existing warnings dating to 1984 were going unnoticed. It says it drew on the advice of various experts to create the labels, which the FDA said are similar to those used in other countries, including Canada.

The companies on Friday responded that while the government has authority to mandate them to accurately warn consumers about the dangers of their products plainly and legibly, it “lacks authority to compel manufacturers to replace their product labels and logos with emotionally-charged photographs and messages demanding that adult customers stop using their lawful products.”

In June, the FDA approved nine new warning labels that companies are to print on the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back. The new warnings, each of which includes a number for a stop-smoking hotline, must constitute 20 percent of cigarette advertising, and marketers are to rotate use of the images.

One label depicts a corpse with its chest sewn up and the words “Smoking can kill you.” Another shows a healthy pair of lungs beside a yellow and black pair with a warning that smoking causes fatal lung disease.

Joining R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard in the suit are Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc.

Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation’s largest cigarette maker, Marlboro maker Philip Morris USA, is not a part of the lawsuit.

The tobacco industry’s legal challenge could delay the new warning labels for years. That is likely to save cigarette makers millions of dollars in lost sales and increased packaging costs.

8387: ANA Versus FDA Is Killing Madison Avenue.

Advertising Age published propaganda from Association of National Advertisers Executive VP-Government Relations Dan Jaffe. The ANA wonk vehemently hollers that the FDA’s proposed cigarette labeling will irreparably damage the advertising industry.

What has Jaffe been smoking?

One can’t help but wonder if the ANA is simply going through the motions—staging the expected First Amendment defense—and even cunningly contributing to Big Tobacco’s covert communications.

Jaffe’s argument is flimsy, flaccid and false.

First, the allegedly “gruesome pictures” are not original. That is, other countries have placed similar images on cigarette packages. The ANA should be aware of this tactic. While MultiCultClassics has no evidence to confirm matters, it seems unlikely that the pictures would adversely affect Big Tobacco profits anyways. After all, cigarette makers and the ANA know threats of death and disease have never deterred smokers from puffing away. Hell, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard are probably delighted to see settlement awards from lawsuits being used to finance anti-smoking campaigns featuring tombstones and cancer victims. Everyone realizes such efforts don’t work.

Jaffe wrote: “No one questions, and the courts have upheld, the right of the government to require the placement of neutral factual disclosures on labels. The proposed graphic warnings, however, are anything but neutral. They would force tobacco companies to expend vast amounts of resources to dramatically stigmatize their own products.”

Yo, Jaffe, have you checked any tobacco advertisements lately? The warning graphics are larger than the headlines, idiot. Big Tobacco has been expending “vast amounts of resources to dramatically stigmatize their own products” for quite some time now—and they seemingly don’t give a shit about the increased regulations. What’s with the ANA’s sudden shock and outrage?

Jaffe pushes paranoia by predicting governmental restrictions will inevitably be applied to other categories, including alcohol, fast food and pharmaceuticals—and he shifts from using “stigmatize” to “demonize” in his raving rant. Um, perhaps the government wouldn’t feel obliged to step in if advertisers weren’t so downright evil in promoting unhealthy products. If Jaffe hopes to halt the forced demonization, he should tell his advertiser cohorts to stop their demonic and devilish ways.

In the end, Jaffe is just playing his role by presenting his old-school perspective. Dan Jaffe + Big Tobacco = Defense Attorney Judy Clarke + The Unabomber and Jared Lee Loughner. Yet the collateral damage Jaffe inflicts upon the advertising industry is worse than the hurt that Big Tobacco might experience with the proposed FDA labels. Jaffe makes us appear to be slick liars, fortifying the long-standing public perception about the deceptive practitioners on Madison Avenue.

Nice job, ANA. Break out the cigars.

:::

(In case you’re curious, here’s Jaffe’s column.)

Why the ANA Is Fighting the FDA’s Proposed Labeling Rules for Tobacco

The Government Can’t Force Companies Selling Legal Products to Demonize Them, Group Argues

By Dan Jaffe

Can the government force companies selling legal products to place a series of gruesome pictures on their product labels and in their advertising? The Food and Drug Administration now proposes to impose exactly this type of regulatory regime. The FDA, in a wide-ranging rulemaking move, has launched an effort to require all tobacco companies to place a series of disturbing graphic warnings on 50% of every tobacco pack or carton and to cover 20% of every advertisement with intentionally shocking visual images.

No one questions, and the courts have upheld, the right of the government to require the placement of neutral factual disclosures on labels. The proposed graphic warnings, however, are anything but neutral. They would force tobacco companies to expend vast amounts of resources to dramatically stigmatize their own products.

Among the graphic warnings proposed, for example, are pictures of a person exhaling smoke through a hole in his throat, a cadaver on an autopsy table with a toe tag and a lung full of cigarette butts. It is hard to conceive what messages the government could not require if compelling these types of graphic images were allowed.

If this FDA proposal is adopted and enforced, it will create sweeping and dangerous precedents for broad sectors of the advertising community. Despite the many claims that tobacco products are “unique,” the Supreme Court has made clear in various cases that there is no vice exception to the First Amendment, that pictures and illustrations have as broad protection as words, and that companies cannot be forced to become mobile billboards for the government’s messages. In virtually every instance in which advertising censorship has been proposed, it has been based on a claim that the category involved was somehow special and would not create precedents. Nevertheless, we have seen that the attacks on other categories in the past few years—from alcoholic beverages to food advertising to prescription drugs—demonstrates that the regulatory slippery slope is all too real in Washington. It is implausible that these FDA proposals will be applied solely in the tobacco arena.

Recently the Supreme Court, in the Thompson v. Western States Medical Center case, strongly affirmed that “if the First Amendment means anything, then regulation of speech must be a last—not first—resort.” Unfortunately, this admonition once again is being ignored.

The government has multiple legitimate avenues to combat tobacco use without raising First Amendment issues: Federal, state and local governmental entities can finally get serious about enforcing the laws against sales of tobacco products to underage customers. They can increase the enforcement of smoke-free environments. They also are free to disseminate widely strong antitobacco messages on their own.

What the government cannot do, and what we will continue to oppose strongly, is force companies selling legal products to demonize them. Nor can the government force companies into becoming blaring megaphones projecting whatever messages, however well-meaning, the government wishes to impose.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dan Jaffe is exec VP-government relations for the Association of National Advertisers.

8154: Fun With Animals.

Smoking guns in a MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• Camel cigarettes seems to be ignoring the latest FDA label proposals by introducing hip designs for its packages. The new designs depict imagery intended to resonate with hipsters in Williamsburg. The FDA will probably force the integration of pictures from the Williamsburg morgue.

• An Australian rugby star turned in his resignation after photos of him engaged in a sex act with a dog appeared on the Web. “I accept total responsibility for what happened,” said the player. “It was a moment of madness, and while it was totally out of character, I have to cop the consequences. I’m disappointed that the photo was distributed, but I should never have put myself in that situation. It’s something I will have to live with for the rest of my life.” Michael Vick is probably thinking, “And they put my ass in jail?”

• The latest study from the American Psychological Association shows 75 percent of the American population suffer from unhealthy levels of stress. Americans are encouraged to ignore tips for relieving stress offered by Australian rugby stars.

8146: FYI, W, GM, FDA.

A Midweek MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• No “Beer Summit” was necessary to smooth things out between Kanye West and George W. Bush. The former president wrote in his new book that having West blurt, “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people,” during a 2005 telethon for Hurricane Katrina victims was “an all-time low” of his time in office. “I would tell George Bush in my moment of frustration, I didn’t have the grounds to call him racist,” said West in an interview that aired today, adding that sometimes “we as human beings don’t choose the right words.” Taylor Swift would wholeheartedly agree. “I’m not a hater. I don’t hate Kanye,” said Bush. “…No one wants to be called a racist if in your heart you believe in equality of race.” Bush should now hold a summit with New Orleans residents—including the ones who are still unable to return to the Chocolate City.

• General Motors announced 3Q profits at $2 billion, the largest amount for the automaker since emerging from bankruptcy in July 2009. “We know we have much more work to do,” said Chief Executive Dan Akerson. “We still need to fix Europe. We continue to be vigilant in reducing cost in the enterprise, and we have just started doing a better job in marketing our brands to consumers.” Well, the jury is still out on that last point.

• The Food and Drug Administration unveiled proposed new labels for cigarettes, including some that depict more graphic warnings (see images below). Hey, the explicit ones should be mandatory additions to all print advertisements.

6735: Cross Your Heart And Hope To Lie.

Food and Drug for Thought in a MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• The Food and Drug Administration says the healthy claims printed on boxes of Cheerios are not accurate, spanking General Mills for “serious violations.” The FDA also gave the cereal maker 15 days to fix the messages. To pull that off, they’d better eat their Wheaties.

• Donald Trump declared that Miss California Carrie Prejean will keep her crown, despite stirring controversy with nude pictures and her views against gay marriage. Can’t help but think Trump backed Prejean just to piss off Rosie O’Donnell.

• New Detroit Mayor Dave Bing won’t be moving into the official mayoral mansion, hoping to turn it into a profit center for the city. “We have the gem and take care of the gem, so we need to use it to our advantage,” said Bing. “I have no desire to live there. It’s a beautiful structure, and I want to see it become an asset for the city and its residents.” Maybe he can rent it to Kwame Kilpatrick.