278 



- 34 



profctlon 1n cigarette history.' It is, nonetheless. Just as 

 effectiyt at conveying the message that it is reasonab^y safT"to 

 siioke that brand of cigarettes, given the widespread public 

 attention given to the harmful effects of the tar and nicotine In 

 tobacco smoke. "(Emphasis added) ^^ 



a. Public Impression of "Reduced Tar and Nicotine" 



According to Ronald M. Davis. M.O., M.A.. director of the Office on 

 Smoking and Health,: 



•The possible effects of cigarette advertl'':-^ or. c- :tl^ cigarette 

 consumption could be attributed to the 1» c .(j< 9nd isi^gtry used in 

 cigarette advertisements, which tend to undermine the effectiveness 

 of the surgeon general's warnings. In Its report to Congress for 

 the year 1978. the FTC noted that 'some ads use language which 

 directly contradicts the required health warning and scientific 

 evidence that smoking is dangerous to health and perhaps to lift 

 Itself... A number of campaigns imply that smoking a particular 

 brand solves the health dilemma or at least minimizes the problem." 

 The FTC report stated that advertising emphasizing tar and nicotine 

 content may: "contain the Implied representation that low tar and 

 nicotine cigarettes are safe. Such Implied representations may 

 mislead the reader about the safety of smoking reduced tar and 

 nicotine brands."'* 



A 1978 survey done for the Tobacco Institute by the Roper Organization 

 reflects the public's concern about the health hazards of smoking. The 

 report concluded that: 



* 1. Norm than nine out of every 10 smokers believe that smoking 

 Is h«2ardous to a smoker's health. 



2. There is majority acceptance of the Idea that the cigarette 

 warning label should be made stronger and more specific. 



3. Two-thirds of smokers would like to give up smoking." 



In the report on the survey excerpted below, references are made to "low 

 tar smokers" that Indicate this group is more concerned about the health 



