Tobacco companies 'target poor'

Anti-smoking campaigners have accused the tobacco industry of aggressively marketing its product to the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Otago University associate professor Tony Blakely said the Government needed to establish a 20 to 30-year time-line for stubbing out tobacco in light of their research showing smoking was becoming a bigger factor in death rate inequalities.


But the tobacco industry said it was already sufficiently regulated. 

About half of all those who took up smoking died because of it -- about 4500 a year -- and they were increasingly drawn from lower socioeconomic groups not been reached by efforts to promote quitting, Professor Blakely said. 

He has suggested setting up a tobacco control authority with full control of tobacco distribution and retailing.

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) director Becky Freeman said while most Government initiatives focused on reducing consumer demand for tobacco products, the tobacco industry itself was "largely unregulated".

"We would like to see more controls on supply and marketing of the products," she said.

"If you want to introduce a smoking cessation product, you have to have four years of clinical trials -- but if you want to set up a cigarette company, you can do it today.

"You can put anything you like in the cigarettes and design the packet any way you like, as long as you include a statutory health warning."

The tobacco industry cynically targeted lower socioeconomic groups, she said.

"There's a famous quote from a tobacco company executive, who, when asked if he smoked, said: 'Oh no, we save that for the poor, the black and the stupid', and that is pretty much their attitude."

Self-regulation of the industry was not working, and responsibility should be vested in the Health Ministry, she said.

Smokefree Coalition spokeswoman Leigh Sturgiss said the organisation also wanted to see more controls on tobacco marketing, including graphic pictorial warnings on cigarette packets and a ban on displays of tobacco products in shops.

She said the "smokefree" legislation, banning smoking in workplaces, restaurants and other public spaces, which came to effect one year ago next Saturday, had no doubt had some effect -- but more could be done.

"We think the biggest deterrent to young people taking up smoking would be an increase in price," she said.

"The tax has not been increased since May 2000."

All anti-smoking lobbyists agreed that more tax money should be spent on smoking cessation initiatives.

The Government receives around $1 billion in cigarette taxes but spends just 3 per cent of it on tobacco control.

"We don't want all of it, but I think 10 per cent to spend on cessation programmes and health promotions would be quite reasonable," Ms Sturgiss said.

According to the Otago University research, smoking has jumped as a factor in the gap in death rates between those with only a high school education and those going on to tertiary study.

Between the early 1980s and the late 1990s, the amount of the gap that could be attributed to smoking increased from 16 per cent to 21 per cent. For women, it increased from 3 per cent to 11 per cent.

The ministry is due to release a report next week regarding the first 12 months of the smokefree legislation.

However, tobacco companies hit back at claims that more regulation was needed.

A spokesman for New Zealand's largest tobacco company, British American Tobacco, Carrick Graham, said it was "ludicrous" to suggest the industry regulations were too lax or "merely voluntary".

"The New Zealand tobacco industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the world," he said.

New Zealand's "smokefree" environment legislation had been in place for 15 years, banning advertising, promotions at point of sale, and sponsorship by tobacco companies.

Yet 23 per cent of the population were still smokers and their needs had to be taken into account, he said.

The focus should be on the product itself and "mitigating risk".

"What the tobacco control people don't seem to understand is that they need to work with the industry on this.

"We want to work with the Government and health researchers to identify what their specific concerns are and what we could do to modify the product.

"With all due respect to them, they do not have the technical understanding of the product nor the scientific knowledge.

"We need to find a way forward together -- but so far they have been very resistant to the idea."

The company in Britain was investing heavily to develop a product that was "acceptable to consumers but offered less risk".

- NZPA