Tobacco Documents Online

7.1 PASSIVE SMOKING 0 PRESENTATION BY THE VERBAND DER CIGARETTENINDUSTRIE AT THE OCCASION OF THE NMA'S WORKSHOP IN WASHINGTON D.C. 20. - 22. SEPTEMBER 1983 Ladies and Gentlemen, You all know the importance of the "Passive Smoking" issue for our prime PR-problem which is the social acceptability of smoking. The war declared on smoking and the tobacco manu- facturers at the 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health in Winnipeg would become a deadly threat to the long-term survival of our industry if passive smoking could be proven to be a real health hazard. Our adversaries could easily mobilize not only the non-smokers themselves but also the media and the law-makers to cry out for severe restrictions on smoking on behalf of the non-smoking "victims". Actually, this is exactly the strategic base-line our anti-tobacco lobby in Germa ny followed since the beginning of the seventies. In a so-called emergency programme against cigarette smoking published in early 1971 they asked among other things for legal protection of the non-smokers under the pretext of health damages caused to them by passive smoking. This specific claim got a wide media reception. In a rather frank statement a year later the "antis" revealed the true political rationale of their using the passive smoking issue. They regarded it as

2 D_ a tool to protect the non-smoker, to reduce the consumption of the smoker, and to denounce smoking as a major source of air pollution, The stage was set and soon passive smoking be- came an issue in official health politics which was not by chance because the anti-smoking lobby at that time had a strong influence on the Health Ministry. In 1-974 the German Federal Government had to answer a Parlia- mentary Question on the health effects of cigarette smoking. It was no surprise to the insider that as a by-product passive smoking had also been dealt with at some length. The government then concluded that inspite of lacking scientific evidence "it would be irresponsible to wait until passive smoking had in fact produced sickness, absenteeism, and death". This was - though in a rather cryptic way - practically a political de- claration*of will to work on a non-smokers' protection law. The German cigarette industry, of course, could not let this dangerous development simply go on. However, the industry was well aware of the fact that it could not speak up for itself being a party in a question which was regarded to be a scientific one. But it could mobilize independent scientists to take up the issue and dispute the effects of passive smoking. This was only possible because the German industry pursued and still does pursue a policy of co-operation with the scientific community out- sioe the industry. This had given it credit and trust in its respo.,- sibility and sincerity. It was on this basis that in an open dispute between the anti-smoking lobby and those serious N ~ 0 scientists the German Society for Occupational Medicine in o . ~ ~ -3- w r

3 1977 took the side of science and disputed the health effects of passive smoking because of lack of evidence. Since there were most alarming signals from inside the Health Ministry that a draft law on non-smokers' protection was in preparation the industry decided to have the issue of passive smoking de- bated on a high level scientific conference in Munich in 1977. The official organizer was the Bavarian Academy for Occupational . and Social Medicine. The active participants were eminent medical scientists and lawyers. The conference was attended by high ranking personalities of the health scenery including health officials from the Ministry. As a result it was con- firmed that passive smoking was not harmful to the non-smoker and hence no special legislative action was needed. This result did impress the Health Ministry. The intended law was changed into a programme of mere recommendations with no binding effects. Even in its official language the government abandoned its former position. When asked in 1980 whether passive smoking would cause lung cancer in non-smokers the Health Ministry's spokesman in Parliament answered that the actual state of epidemiological research did not support such a relationship. This answer reflected at the same time a fading influence of the anti-smoking lobby on the Ministry. Industry's tactic to isolate them from the serious scientific community and to uncover their quasi-religious fanatism proved to be successful. The debate on passive smoking heated up again when in early 1981 HIRAYAMA published his findings. They got wide and spectacular media coverage not only in scientific 4

4 papers but in the public press as well. They made the cover stories in the most influential weekly magazines of "stern" and "Spiegel". Industry's immediate reaction was to counter this attack with an ad running in the most important and influential dailies and citing those scientists who disputed HIRAYAMA's results. The headline of the ad said: "What you could not read in stern". Meanwhile GARFINKEL published his study. With his results in hands which contradicted HIRAYAMA's industry persuaded the Munich Medical Weekly, one of the most renowned German medical journals, to pick up the controversy. After giving both side a chance to present its case the story ended with the authoritative conclusion of Prof. LEHNERT, then head of the German Society for Occupational Medicine,who stated that no proof has been offered that passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. This, for the time being, did neutralize the impact of HIRAYAMA's findings, However, industry is well aware of the fact that this state is in a very delicate ba- lance and that only further co-operation with serious scientists can help to stabilize the situation. So industry by its research branch engaged itself in a research programme on passive smoking done by the highest health authority in Germany which is the Federal Health Office in Berlin. This co-operation, though rather new, is bearing already some fruit: In a recent state- ment on passive smoking in the Hessian Parliament the Hessian State Government cited from a letter of the Federal Health Office to the Federal Health Ministry. It said that inspite of the findings of HIRAYAMA and TRICHOPOULOS there is not sufficient 2501021633 5

5 evidence to support the assumption that passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers. To further strengthen this view industry has successfully persuaded renowned medical organi- zations of occupational and social medicine in Germany and Austria to hold a joint scientific workshop on passive smoking in April next in Vienna. Hopefully this workshop will turn out as a replica of the Munich Conference in 1977. The health aspect of passive smoking is only half of the story. There is another side of the same phenomenon, namely the annoyance aspect, which turns the issue of passive smoking into one of public smoking. As the Winnipeg Conference only recently demonstrated there is a growing ten- dency among the anti-tobacco lobby to shift the problem of passive smoking to this social aspect under the heading of non-smokers' rights. Perhaps they feel that it might be difficult to get further scientific backing for their course. Consequently they concentrate on the annoyance aspect proclaiming the right to breathe unpolluted smoke-free air. This switch of topic opens a new battle ground which lies in the political and legal area. One cannot deny the fact that tobacco smoke might be an annoyance: Yo can see the tobacco smoke filling a room puff by puff, you can smell it, your eyes and nose might even be irritated, you can see the butts lying everywhere around and, of course, there is the ugly view of an over-filled ashtray. Now, if you were a non-smoker you 6

6 may ask indeed why a small bunch of addicts - and smokers are a minority, and their habit is often understood as addiction - should be entitled to spoil your environment and why you should tolerate this. Although there is no such basic right in our law like a right to breathe unpolluted air the notion seems by far too attractive and tempting not to be taken into account even by high court judges. In a recent case where a city councillor of a small city council in Northrhine- Westfalia asked for a smoking ban during the sessions the high administrative court of Northrhine-Westfalia ruled that smoking might be banned if only one of the city councillors asked for it on grounds that he personally felt annoyed by the smoke. This verdict is still open for appeal but it shows the fasci- nation of the issue which is even greater to politicians and lawmakers. To cope with this problem our industry decided to follow a double-strategy: On one hand we try to show that smokers - though admittedly being in a minority's position - are one of the bigges, and respectable minorities within the community, so that neither judges nor lawmakers could simply overgo their rights. On the other hand we try to show that smoking is a deep-rooted cultural habit with eminent social benefits and at the same time a source of individual enjoyment. N ~ 0 ~ a N ... ~ 7 - cwr,

7 May I now briefly give you some examples of how the industry translated this basic philosophy into PR-actions. In early 1982 we were alarmed by certain attempts within the catering trade to intensify the promotion of non-smoker facilities in inns and restaurants. This would have had fatal PR-consequences for the tobacco industry. There are few places where smoking is so widely and unanimously accepted and where there is such a positive consumption climate. In a market survey which we commissioned we could prove that smokers spend more money of their personal budget to go into inns and restaurants than non- smokers. This was a persuasive argument for the German hotel and restaurants' association to start a campaign under the motto "Smokers are better guests". They presented the re- sults of the market research at the occasion of the association's annual meeting in Hamburg and at various press conferences there- after. The association furthermore publicly endorsed to a policy that non-smoker facilities - having been proven as an economic failure - should not be promoted and that every government recommendation in this direction would be rejected. There was a wide press coverage. Practically all comments were in favour of this campaign so that it got strong public support, This en- couraged us to extend a little bit on this line and to help establish Germany's first tobacco inn called "Fidibus". 8

8 0 Fidibus is the ancient name of the wooden span with which you light up a pipe or a cigarette. The interior of this inn is decorated in the style of the Golden Twenties and all to- bacco oriented. A highly classified tobacco shop where you can get your own pipe tobacco mixture is integrated in the ensemble of the inn. Again the media coverage at the opening of this inn was enormous. Fears that the concept of this inn might be misunderstood as a new form of smoker's/ non-smoker's apartheid proved to be groundless. The idea was unanimously welcomed in the public,and much to our satisfaction the tobacco inn is up to now an economic success. • Another campaign which followed very much the same line is the taxi-drivers' campaign "Smokers welcome". It started in March this year and will run throughout the rest of it. The basis for this campaign was, again, a market survey which showed that smokers spend more money on taxi-driving than ~ 0 non-smokers. With this result at hand we persuaded several a N important regional taxi-drivers' associations to pitch for ~ this target group in this special promotional effort. The ti pre-requisites for our success were favourable: On one hanc, the taxi-drivers are suffering a severe economic crisis, on the other hand they offer the only public transportation system where smoking is allowed - at least in smokers' cabs. The taxi- drivers' associations in turn asked their members who drive smokers' cabs to openly advertise for their cabs by putting the smiling smoker's sticker on it which we provided for.

9 As I told you already the first campaign started in March this year in Frankfurt, with the Berlin association following on the lst September and the Hamburg and Munich taxi-drivers in October of this year. The media reaction in Frankfurt which was a sort of a pilot project was inspite of some critics over- whelmingly favourable to this campaign and got wide attention. Even the American Forces Network reported on it. And in our leading daily BILD-Zeitung with a circulation of 6.4 million the action was welcomed with a headline over the full page reading "In Frankfurt's taxis again: 'Smokers welcome' ". To get support among the taxi-drivers the taxi- drivers' association advertised the campaign in its members' journal with a series of testimonials of those who had already taken part in the action. According to a quick survey we did in Frankfurt the ratio of smokers' taxis showing the pro-smoker sticker is by now as high as those bearing the non-smoking sign. While it is much too early to juage the second campaign in Berlin we find it encouraging that at the beginning of it about 2.000 drivers of smoking cabs declared themselves ready to participate. Of course, this action was and still is not without any risk. When we discussed it for the first time there were some reservations about a possible public outcry in the media. However, up to now these reservations seem to be unfounded. To my mind this could be explained with the fact that in Germany we have a public climate of moderation con- cerning smoking issues. Great part of it we owe to our constant basic press and PR-work which, so to speak, prepares the soil where such PR-actions could grow favourably: - 10 -

Now let me turn to a last PR-G-ction in the field of public smoking. It will take place on the 7th October of this year in the town of Treves. It is called "Tobacco Forum" and is a discussion between experts about the social benefits of smoking. The format of this evening event is a mixture between a classical talk-show and some elements of entertain- ment. It is hosted by the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Treves and it will take place in the comfortable atmosphere of a wine restaurant. Invited are some 80 guests of high ranking public personalities including the State Ministers of Finance and Economics, The Verband will be represented by members of its Board of Directors. The whole idea of this Tobacco Forum goes back to an original INFOTAB project which the Verband tried to adapt to the German situation. Hopefully it will bring over the basic message that in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance,which is a corner stone of modern mass society, smokers and non-smokers can live together peacefully, Ladies and gentlemen, this is the end of my presentation, Thank you very much for your attention.