4-H State Groups Rejecting Tobacco Grants

When Philip Morris began its most recent campaign to partner with mainstream organizations  particularly organizations whose missions involve youth development, education or health issues  many observers were quick to point to the conflict of interest these partnerships represent.  One example involves the National 4-H Council.  This organization accepted a $4.3 million grant from Philip Morris to fund a “youth tobacco prevention” program.  Many within the 4-H structure viewed the grant with suspicion; more than half of the 4-H state organizations have rejected partnership involvement.

The tobacco company intended that the National 4-H Council would distribute much of the Philip Morris money to its state 4-H groups.  However, many state 4-H groups around the country have recognized that no good can come from such a program.  Since these groups are the ones involved in the day-to-day youth development efforts, they understand the conflict that a partnership with Philip Morris represents.

The National 4-H Council would be wise to listen to its state groups and follow suit.  The National Council tries to legitimize the grant with a statement on its web site:

“The program will focus on positive youth development and life skills development as an approach to preparing young people to make healthy lifestyle choices. Funding for this innovative, youth-adult approach is provided by Philip Morris USA.”

Healthy lifestyle choices funded by a cigarette maker?

What is wrong with this partnership?  The National 4-H Council is an organization dedicated to youth development.  In contrast, Philip Morris is a company dedicated to marketing its deadly products to ensure the next generation of tobacco users.  Philip Morris is not sincere about curtailing youth tobacco use. While company executives claim they do not want or encourage young people to smoke, Philip Morris holds more than 60 percent of the youth tobacco market (boys and girls).  The marketing campaigns that have been so critical to this success continue.

Today, tobacco use among young people is near a 19-year high.  Recently released internal tobacco industry documents show that the motivation behind programs like these has not been to reduce tobacco use among kids, but rather to gain positive publicity, deflect political pressure, avoid government regulation and create the appearance of action.  Unfortunately, Philip Morris is using the 4-H to prevent the government from requiring fundamental change in the tobacco company’s marketing and manufacturing practices that would truly reduce youth tobacco use and save lives.  These changes should include the marketing restrictions the company agreed to in the June, 1997 Attorneys General settlement, including:

• the elimination of all human figures  including the Marlboro Man  in advertising and promotion;
• a ban on all self-service displays for cigarettes;
• a complete ban on all brand name sponsorships of teams, sports, entertainment and other events;
• a limit of two small tobacco ads in black-and-white text only at each retail outlet;
• a limitation on all tobacco ads in magazines with significant youth readership to black-and-white text only;
• a ban on outdoor ads at retail outlets;
• stronger and more visible warning labels on all tobacco packaging and ads;
• a ban on vending machines; and
• a ban on tobacco Internet advertising.

Philip Morris’ partnership effort is just another in a long line of public relations initiatives designed to give it legitimacy and avoid real change by making it appear reformed and responsible.  The state groups have identified this farce and so should the National 4-H Council.

Even while Philip Morris indicates it does not want kids to smoke, it continues the marketing that has made its brands the favorite among children.  Approximately 85 percent of youth who smoke prefer the three most heavily advertised brands, including more than 60 percent (both boys and girls) who smoke the Philip Morris flagship brand  Marlboro.  Between 1988 and 1997 alone, the Marlboro campaign was responsible for convincing 1.2 million children to begin smoking.  About 300,000 of these new smokers are expected to die prematurely from tobacco-related disease.  (John P. Pierce, Elizabeth A. Gilpin and Won S. Choi, “Sharing the Blame:  Smoking Experimentation and Future Smoking-Attributable Mortality Due to Joe Camel and Marlboro Advertising and Promotions,” Tobacco Control, 8 (Spring 1999): 37-44.)

Philip Morris knows that 90 percent of all smokers begin at or before the age of 18.  Court documents released during litigation with the tobacco industry show the company recognizes the importance of the youth market and has actively sought to capture it as the next generation of “replacement” smokers.  Would the tobacco industry fund real programs aimed at reducing youth tobacco use and ultimately destroy that essential market?  Unless it takes serious steps such as restricting marketing and advertising, Philip Morris must be seen as responsible for the problem, not as part of the solution.

The state 4-H groups that have rejected tobacco money include: Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact us at 2022965469.

K/Acc Proj Final/4H/Memo4-H State Rejections 9-14-99