I was dismayed to find an advertising insert for Philip Morris USA’s Youth Smoking Prevention Program in November JADA ("The Raising Kids Who Don’t Smoke Series" following page 1544). Philip Morris USA manufactures Marlboro cigarettes, the long-time leading brand among young people who smoke.1
That sales record was no accident; previously secret tobacco industry documents reveal decades of market research by Philip Morris designed specifically to achieve that goal,2 so many people in the tobacco control and public health community are skeptical that the company is serious about reducing smoking by young people.
Philip Morris’ advertising campaign focuses on peer influence, parental factors and commercial access being the primary influences on youth smoking initiation, rather than tobacco industry marketing, inaccurate risk appraisal, price and other factors known to influence youth smoking.3 The available evidence suggests that not only is this tobacco industry campaign not effective in reducing youth smoking, it was associated with lowering youths’ perceived harm of smoking.4
Tobacco industry–sponsored campaigns such as Philip Morris’ may have a harmful effect by contributing "clutter" to public health-sponsored advertising that has been shown to be effective, and by reinforcing smoking as a measure of teens’ independence from their parents.4
In actuality, the primary reasons for Philip Morris USA’s Youth Smoking Prevention Program and similar tobacco industry–produced campaigns is to allow the tobacco companies to claim in litigation that they are "serious" about attacking youth smoking, and to improve their public image.
There are many excellent tobacco-use prevention and cessation materials produced by reputable health agencies and organizations that would be far more appropriate.
The Code on Dental Procedures and Nomenclature is a living document that can change, and has changed, to reflect evolution in techniques and materials.
TOP
REFERENCES
