The government faces fiery opposition to the proposed restrictions on tobacco advertising, reports Chris Louw
A BATTLE looms as the country’s billion rand advertising industry gears up to join the powerful tobacco industry in opposing what they regard as the government’s “draconian restrictions” on cigarette advertising.
The anti-smoking lobby, which seemed to have won the battle when strict regulations controlling tobacco adverts were accepted by the government, is now running into a wall of opposition.
Warnings have been sounded that thousands of jobs may be lost and cigarette advertising stopped completely if Minister of Health Dr Nkosazana Zuma goes ahead with plans to enforce stringent health warnings on cigarette ads.
The industry says the cessation of advertising could spell disaster for a host of related businesses, including reproduction houses, advertising agencies and magazines which depend on cigarette adverts for up to 10 percent of their advertising revenue. The tobacco industry spends between R4- million and R5-million a month on advertising in the print media, mostly for “brand building”.
Notice of proposed legislation regulating the labelling, advertising and sale of tobacco products _ including cigars and snuff _ was promulgated in the Government Gazette on June 3. Interested parties have until September to make submissions.
If the draft regulations become law, at least a quarter of the space in all cigarette advertisements will have to consist of health warnings, including a prominent warning that smoking can kill.
Tobacco Institute spokesman Joh Groenewald said: “It is understood that the governmnent sets great store by consultation. The tobacco industry has not been consulted about these draft regulations.”
The tough legislation prescribes even the typeface and the colours of the lettering of warnings. The warning must be in Helvetica type, must be at the top across the full width of the advert, and must comprise nine percent of the ad.
At the bottom, also across the full width, a “description” of specific problems caused by smoking must appear in white letters against a black background, comprising 15 percent of the advert. Another one percent at the top of the ad must be allocated to information relating to the tar and nicotine content. In all cases the same language must be used for the warnings as for the advert itself.
l At least a quarter of every radio advert for cigarettes will have to be a warning about the dangers of smoking. The warning must be read in the same voice used to read the advert.
l Cinema adverts will have to carry a warning across the screen, nine percent of the width of the ad, throughout their duration. At the end a description of the damage that smoking can cause must be displayed over 80 percent of the screen, for “a period equivalent to 20 percent of the total screening time of the advertisement”.
l Cigarette packages will be transformed. A quarter of the front of each pack will have to carry a health warning; 50 percent of the back will be taken up by a warning, as well as 50 percent of one long side, “excluding the part that forms part of the lid”.
Appealing to the principle of “freedom of commercial speech”, International Marketing and Advertising managing director Apes van Rensburg said this week that thousands of jobs could be on the line if the government went ahead with its “unreasonable demands”. He said the regulations were such that the tobacco industry was being expected to sponsor the anti-smoking campaign.
Van Rensburg said nine of the country’s 20 top advertising agencies in the country had some stake in cigarette ads. His own company might have to lay off more than half its staff if the regulations went through. The ripple effect of job losses in the industry would be “incalculable”.
Tobacco Institute chairman Joppie Graham said the government’s strategy “is to compel the tobacco industry to cease advertising by means of this de facto advertising ban”.
Describing the regulations as “draconian and restrictive in nature”, Graham said the tobacco industry, and not the Department of Health, would be blamed by the advertising industry and the media “for the total withdrawal of advertising”.
Magazine editor and publisher Jane Raphaely also regards the legislation as misguided, arguing that the message will reach the “literate, affluent and more pale” segment of the population: magazine and newspaper readers who know the dangers and have already made up their minds about whether to smoke or not.
She said the smoking habit was continuing to grow “primarily among people who are not literate; the very young, and poor single parents in economic ghettos all over the world”. Reaching these people would entail measures other than restricting magazine and newspaper adverts.
Though the legislation “gives a semblance of action, the real problem is not addressed,” Raphaely added. It would be better for the government to use its own resources, including the SABC, to educate people. “Education about the dangers of smoking could be combined with education on excessive drinking and driving, the importance of healthy eating, the dangers of the depletion of the ozone layer and Aids awareness.”
Zuma has spiritedly defended the proposed regulations. Interviewed recently on radio, she said: “The most important regulations are the labelling of the cigarettes and tobacco packets, so that when people buy them they actually get the warning on the packet itself but also the advertising. We would like every advert that is on the sports field or on television also to have the warning.
“The important thing is to try to discourage especially teenagers and children from starting to smoke.
“It may be difficult to change the people who are already smokers, but we would really like to reduce the number of children that start to smoke and also to protect non-smokers so that non-smokers know there is a danger in passive smoking as well.”