|
The Tobacco Toll |
|
  Friday . May 16 |
|
Letter to State Boards of Education Governor Don Siegelman Dear Governor Siegelman: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we are writing to alert you to a disturbing effort by U.S. tobacco companies to form “partnerships” with state departments of education and other reputable organizations concerned with the health and welfare of America’s children. This endeavor is another in a long line of cynical public relations initiatives by the tobacco industry to gain “innocence by association” with credible organizations such as yours. While its purpose is to appear reformed and responsible, the tobacco industry uses these relationships to avoid fundamental changes in its unethical marketing and manufacturing practices. We strongly urge you to reject any funding or other type of relationship with the tobacco industry. This letter was prompted by a recent surprising development in West Virginia. There, the state Department of Education recently announced that it has accepted a $4.5 million three-year grant from Philip Morris, and Brown & Williamson, two of the largest tobacco companies in the United States. This sudden decision came without warning to state public health authorities, nonprofit health groups, and others who are deeply concerned about the wisdom of accepting this tobacco money. We believe any grants from the tobacco industry will ultimately do more harm than good, to both educational institutions and to America’s children. A core function of any educational system is to model proper behavior for the young people entrusted to it. By accepting this money from the industry, the West Virginia Department of Education has sent a dangerously mixed message to the young people of that state: it’s bad to smoke cigarettes, but it is okay to take money from the very people who have done so much to addict young people to tobacco. The companies involved in the grant to West Virginia represent the biggest private tobacco companies in the world. They know that nearly 90 percent of all smokers begin at or before age 18. The future of these companies and of their industry depends on a steady stream of children and teenagers entering into a lifelong addiction. Tragically, 3,000 American children become regular smokers every day; more than one-third of them will die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses. It is an inescapable fact of their business, and an inescapable conflict of interest with any educational institution. The success of these companies among young people is neither an accident nor a mystery. For example, Philip Morris’ advertising icons, the Marlboro Cowboy and the Virginia Slims Woman, represent the ideals of American youth. The company has spent and continues to spend billions of dollars promoting these powerful images of freedom, independence, virility, glamour and thinness in order to sell a lethal product that addicts the vast majority of its customers as teenagers. Documents released in the course of litigation show that these companies have long recognized that their growth and future revenues are directly related to their success attracting new generations of smokers. It comes as no surprise that Philip Morris' Marlboro brand alone attracts 60 percent of all youth smokers, both boys and girls. These companies are now under considerable legal and political pressure, as they have been at several critical junctures over the past 45 years. Their response in this instance, as in the past, has been to launch a massive public relations campaign to convince the American public, Congress, and other policymakers that they can be trusted to protect America’s children, while they simultaneously conduct business as usual. In fact, internal company documents show that the primary objective of past initiatives was to forestall effective policy changes, not to benefit youth. Consider, for example, a 1995 internal memorandum from Philip Morris in which a senior executive warns, “If we don’t do something fast to project the sense of industry responsibility regarding the youth access issue, we are going to be looking at severe marketing restrictions in a very short time.” It is little wonder, then, that programs funded by tobacco companies have had no measurable effect on youth smoking rates. They were intended to hinder effective tobacco control, not enhance it. This history of deceit by the tobacco industry provides three basic reasons for rejecting tobacco industry grants: ü There is a fundamental conflict of interest between educational organizations, which are committed to child welfare, and tobacco companies, which remain committed to selling ever-increasing numbers of cigarettes, which they can do only by addicting young smokers. ü These partnerships give the tobacco industry undeserved legitimacy and credibility by being associated with children and education. The companies will use this legitimacy to pretend they are part of the solution, rather than the cause of the problem. This allows them to continue their harmful marketing practices and avoid new regulations by arguing that they are taking care of the problem. ü Donations to educational institutions and other nonprofits provide the tobacco industry with tax deductions and good publicity. The public sees the industry as well intentioned and generous, and the industry becomes cloaked with a veneer of respectability. For these reasons, we believe the tobacco industry’s professed interest in helping children is not credible and that the industry must not be rewarded with positive publicity or partnerships with educational groups until minimum conditions are met. These conditions include fundamental reform of its marketing practices and acceptance of oversight by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, which oversees all other products intended for human consumption. We also should note that reputable organizations that have accepted tobacco industry funding have found that doing so can create a public relations nightmare, divisions within the organization, criticism by the public health community, and long-term damage to the organization’s integrity. One example of this is the National 4-H Council, which recently accepted a grant from Philip Morris and has found itself drawn into a protracted internal and external battle over whether to reconsider its partnership with the tobacco company. In addition, while the tobacco industry professes to offer its funds with "no strings attached," there are always certain conditions and obligations. For example, when Philip Morris was lobbying against proposed legislation in New York, the tobacco company was able to call on nonprofits which had previously received grants to help defend the company's position. The 4-H Council has Philip Morris representatives on its program design committee. We believe any relationship with the tobacco industry will become even more awkward in the months ahead, as the extent of the industry’s targeting of children and other wrongdoing is further revealed in hundreds of legal cases beginning to come to trial. To make sure that your state’s department of education does not fall into the quagmire of hypocrisy that has beset West Virginia, we urge you to remain vigilant to any efforts by the tobacco industry to compromise the integrity of your educational system under the guise of philanthropy. We hope you find this background and our perspective on this issue helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us with questions. Sincerely,
John Seffrin M. Cass Wheeler Randolph D. Smoak, Jr., M.D. Ernest B. Fleishman William D. Novelli Alvin Lever Arthur Garson, Jr., N.D., M.P.H. Walter J. McDonald, M.D., FACP George K. Anderson James F. Callahan Arthur T. Dean, Major General Marsha Johnson Evans Rene F. Rodriguez, M.D. Roy Branson Elena Rios, M.D. Pearl Moore Prema Mathai-Davis K/Acc Proj Final/Education/Ltr-State Boards of Education 7-7-99 |
|
|
