1987 — Page 141

I

272

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

many health organizations have made urgent recommendations for the banning of all promotion of tobacco goods. Those which have called for such a ban include World Health Organization, international and local health bodies, all the Royal Colleges in the UK, the International Organization of Consumers Unions, to name but a few. In line with the world standard to curb the promotion of tobacco use, the HK Government had decided on the phased ban on advertising in the electronic media in 1987. There will be forthcoming other restrictions on advertising in other media. World experience has shown that in countries with ban on direct advertising, other forms of indirect advertising will be used to circumvent such advertising bans. Hence the importance for us to focus our attention on the issue of sponsorship of sports and arts by tobacco industry.

I welcome this opportunity to expound on the issue of tobacco sponsorship of arts and sports; outlining the reasons why tobacco sponsorship should not be allowed, reviewing the local position in Hong Kong, concluding with some suggestions for future actions.

B. WHY SHOULD TOBACCO SPONSORSHIP NOT BE ALLOWED

(1) Sponsorship is a form of indirect advertising.

By sponsoring sport, the tobacco industry is able to link its name to a healthy, outdoor sporting image which has great appeal to young people. Studies on school children in UK reveals that even for those as young as six years old are aware and are influenced by this promotion. In fact, the standard code of practice for TV advertising specifically states that tobacco should not utilize healthy sport image to promote its products, the same standard should be applied to sponsorship.

Appendix 1 and 6: 'No advertising shall use as endorsers athletes or celebrities in the entertainment world or other persons who are known to have popular appeal in Hong Kong.'

Appendix 1 and 13: 'Cigarette advertising may not use attractive, healthy looking models, or illustrations or drawings of persons who appear to be attractive and healthy, if there is a suggestion that their attractive appearance or good health is due to cigarette smoking.'

Appendix 1 and 14: 'No advertising shall state or imply that smoking pro- motes physical health . . . . . .

(2) Tobacco sponsorship attempts to buy political power, prestige and res-

pectability.

Sponsorship will also enhance the image of the cigarette companies as public benefactors and enables them to sit on boards of organizations such as Glyudebourne Arts trust along with influential people from government poli- tics, the business and the academic world. It enables them to invite other notables as their guests to the performances. It enables them to discretely

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 141 of 185

273

promote their names and their harmful products. They may sometimes exercise their contact to lobby against legislation. As reported in Newsweek in November 1985, when New York City Council was proposing to limit smoking in public places, the city museum funded by Philip Morris received a strong letter urging them to lobby against the legislation.

Sir Roy SHAW, former Secretary General of the Arts Council in the UK, sharply criticized the insidious use of sponsorship tactics in sports and arts, by the tobacco industry saying that the industry seeks to 'burnish' its 'tarnished image', thus making its products more acceptable. He concluded 'The arts are life enhancing. I find it very ironical that they should be linked with a product which is life denying.'

In the UK, ACTS (Actors Campaign against Tobacco Sponsorship) has formed to lobby against increasing sponsorship of the arts by the tobacco industry. Actor Warren MITCHELL said that 'in Norway, where such sponsorship of arts and sport has been banned, the effects are noticeable. In Britian we are helping to destroy our youth.'

In 1986 the actors' union, Equity, voted for a ban on tobacco company sponsorship of the arts. At the union's 1986 AGM, it was stated: "The arts in this country gets a quarter of one per cent of its total funding from tobacco companies and for that we are expected to glamourize and make respectable products that kill 15 times more people each year than road accidents. Tobacco money is dirty money and we don't need it.'

(3) Sponsorship builds a constituency of thankful and financially dependent recipients who can often be relied on to support the tobacco industry, or who would feel obliged to influence their decisions in the act against tobacco. Surprisingly, statements from the tobacco industry itself reveal their real purpose in sponsorship. Sponsorship, it was stated, 'is a form of advertising which enables us to introduce glamour and excitement, 'with emphasis on the merit of sponsorship linked to prestigious events. (SCMP Business News, 12 February 1986)

In December 1985, the British Medical Journal published an article entitled 'Taking money from the devil' on the subject of tobacco sponsorship of health research. The Editorial said the most important argument against accepting such money is the 'undeserved respectibility given to the industry'. It also noted that such money may buy off an influential and articulate opponent of tobacco, saying that it is impolite to 'bite the hand that feeds you'. The British Medical Association overwhelmingly recommended that no doctors or health authority should associate themselves with such grant money.

(4) Social Costs to the community

It has often been said that, for the sake of promotion of Art and Sports, tobacco money should be willingly accepted to improve the quality of our life.

Page 141 of 185