OSU Study: Tobacco Industry Prevention Ads May Actually Have Negative Effects on Teens

Researchers found that there was a 12 percent increase in the likelihood that 10th-and 12th-grade students would become smokers if they watched prevention ads targeted at their parents.

Photo: Peer Education Project

(CORVALLIS) - Tobacco company-sponsored anti-smoking advertising aimed at youths not only has no negative effect on teen smoking, it may actually encourage youngsters to smoke, according to a study co-authored by an Oregon State University researcher.

Results from the study also show that tobacco industry-sponsored prevention ads aimed at parents often have harmful effects on students, also increasing their likelihood of smoking.

“We suspected this the minute we saw the kind of ads the tobacco companies were creating,” said Brian Flay, a professor in the Department of Public Health at Oregon State University. “Their objective is to get customers, not to stop customers from finding them.”

The study appears in the December issue of American Journal of Public Health.

Flay was one of nine researchers from Bridging the Gap, a policy research program based at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Michigan, who worked on this study, which is the first to examine how youth are affected by parent-targeted ads sponsored by the tobacco industry.

More than 100,000 students from all areas of the country in 8th, 10th and 12th grades were surveyed to assess the relationship between exposure to tobacco company prevention advertising and youth smoking-related beliefs, intentions and behaviors.

Researchers linked the data with Nielsen Media Research data on the exposure of youth to smoking-related ads that appeared on network and cable stations in the 75 largest United States media markets from 1999 to 2002.

Some of the findings include:

Each additional youth-targeted prevention ad viewed by a student resulted in a 3 percent stronger intention among all students to smoke in the future.

There was a 12 percent increase in the likelihood that 10th-and 12th-grade students would become smokers if they watched prevention ads targeted at their parents.

On average, the students were exposed to more than four youth-targeted ads per month.

In analyzing the data, researchers adjusted their analysis for factors other than tobacco company prevention ads that might have had an effect on levels of youth smoking.

Those additional factors include smoking laws, cigarette prices and other televised advertising about not smoking.

The National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded the study.

Flay, who has conducted school-based and health research for more than 30 years, said parents who find the amount of advertising targeting their children overwhelming can take preventative steps.

“Parents should have a clear message about smoking and always reinforce that message against smoking from an early age,” he said.

“Even parents who are smokers can make it clear and communicate to their child that they wished they hadn’t started smoking, because the majority of smokers do feel that way.”

Reports From Iraq

Salem-News.com Top Stories
Salem Officer Tells Story of Wednesday's Mill Creek Rescue (VIDEO)

---

The War on Terror Does Not Exist

---

Beyond the Debate: Making an Informed Decision about Mammograms

---

A Fish Story

---

Army Announces Independent Body Armor Review

---

Of course the ads do this. It is all part of the plan. Does anyone ACTUALLY think big tobacco gives a hoot about underage smoking?? Come on...It's all about the profit, and it always has been and will be. It is all part of the ongoing well-crafted tobacco industry scams on the public. It kills thousands of people a year but nobody is ever arrested, no billionaire execs have a worry at all. Meanwhile somewhere in the county someone is getting a 5-10-15 year sentence for possessing pot. The lunacy keeps going on and on...Welcome to the ugly real world.

Impassioned-painful denials of known damage characterize complete addiction...while the ads-involved are longtime well-recognized within communictions profession for skillful avoidance of regulation demanded --as for other access to public-poison dangers.

Smoke your brains out kiddies!

This is also about freedom of choice, the see this, Dispatches Stealing your freedom - Google Video:, the Government are getting away with far to much we should all stick together, just take the old communist country the Czech republic, you can smoke openly there, and you can smoke openly cannabis, it is now a free country, and we are not, they want us to have identification cards, for Gods sake, the check of it, and they say it's for the terrorists, we have terrorists because of the way the Government are, it's not because of you and me. Comparing smoke to car emissions, well first we need to know how many smokers in the pub you go and how big the pub is, because I have lots of non-smoking friends and they do not coughing and spluttering with their eyes watering. As smoke goes up and to the ventilation systems and doors. Yes sit in a garage with the engine running and you will be dead in 15 minutes, I sit in a garage with a load of smokers I will be the till I die of old age.
________________________________________________________________________________
What we at www.thebigdebate.org and sister new site freedom2choose.co.uk is separate smoking rooms with full ventilation, I think both party’s would be happy then. But lets get back the car emissions, you might think you have an option with them but you do not, your breathing them in all the time, it’s only because you “see” the smoke from cigarettes that you seem to worry about it, but you breath in far more fumes than you realise MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes. Oxford city centre has the worst air pollution in the country, according to a survey which compares inhaling the air there to smoking 61 cigarettes a day. So with all the toxins in the air, is a ban in bar and clubs, really worth all the time and money, as your breathing in toxins all day, the only difference with cigarettes, is you can “see” the smoke, when good ventilation could be far more useful. When good ventilation could be far more useful, and it can get rid of all the toxins in the air, I can prove evidence and links. GOING INTO A PUB AND BREATHING IN A LITTLE PASSIVE SMOKE ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK IS LIKE A VERY LITTLE NEEDLE IN A VERY BIG HAYSTACK, AND THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER POLLUTANTS OUT THERE TOO. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm http://archive.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/2004/08/27/9214.html Did you see the latest David Attenborough program, as it showed cars and homes produce lots of toxic fumes, that goes into tones, you antis get rid of your cars and homes, and I will my cigarettes, as the average family of four, with cars and homes produces “40 TONES”, have to repeat that “40 TONES” of toxic fumes each year from the petrol, diesel, electricity, gas and so forth, diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens, but do we complain about that, damn right we do not, and a person who smokers 20 per day, for a year, the toxic fumes produced , is less than a gram, so please what do you say about that, as you yourself are putting out far more toxic fumes than a smoker over a million % more, but the only problem is as I said you can’t “see” the toxic fumes, but with a smokers you can see the smoke, and some think the worst on even rely on junk science please get your facts right before you debate on the internet. Some people state that passive smoking kills 10000 people per year in the UK, but they can never name one ??? Why because no one dies or gets harmed by passive smoking, just look at all the diesel and other fumes people breath in every day, the passive smoke in like the small needle in the big haystack, it’s the fumes in the air that kill, not the little amount of passive smoke, I e-mailed the UK statistics site, BMJ, and the Government, and they could not name one person, as if there was one person, they would have hospital records that they died or was harmed by passive smoke, so where are all these people that are dieing and being harmed by passive smoking; no people are being harmed by passive smoking, and in a court of law you need evidence, this ban is based on “NO EVIDENCE” they will not get away with this. Why because there are not any people dieing because of passive smoking, as will prove below. Why not smoking you may ask, Because UK Government statistics from 1970 to 2006 show smoking is in decline worldwide. in 1970, 45% of the UK smoked, now in 2006, only 25% smoke, that is means the total smokers in the UK in the last 36 years has nearly halved, HOWEVER cancer is on the rise, Between 1971 and 2003, the age-standardised incidence of cancer increased by around 17 per cent in males and 40 per cent in females. Visit the following site it will give you tables of the highest smoking prevalence and the highest lung cancer prevalence, the higher percentage of smokers per country, the lower the cancer rate, the two don't match up; cancer we “thought” was more likely to be caused by food or individual genes, however we now know it’s not smoking, but diesel, and the diesel article ties up with our other articles, unless someone can come up with another idea. http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages.htm So you have not got to be Einstein, to work out something else is causing the cancer, and as from statistics its not tobacco SO LETS STOP BLAMING THE SMOKING AND GET TO THE TRUTH, AS BANNING SMOKING WILL KILL 10000 MORE, I WANT TO SAVE LIVES, DO NOT YOU. The real cause of cancer, and mostly lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that: tobacco smoke contains only very low% of carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens; that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns; that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways; that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades; and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more, we here at the big debate, think this is a breakthrough, and the REAL reason for the higher cancer, when there has been a natural decline in the people smoking thought the years, blaming the higher cancer on smoking, is not true, when there are over a million less smoking from the 60’s and cancer is up, is just does not add up, diesel fumes does add up. http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html Some of you are saying why should we put up with other peoples smoke, you should try and work in a welding, foundry or down the pit, come on get into the real live, your breathing in so much crap in the everyday air, breathing in a little passive smoke, will make “NO” difference. SINCE THE BANS SMOKING RATES ARE “UP” IN IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND NEW ZEALAND, AND I CAN PRODUCE HARD EVIDENCE OF THIS. YOU CAN NOT NAME ONE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN HARMED OR DIED BY PASSIVE SMOKE, I will now name 671 pedestrians were killed In 2005, in road accidents in Great Britain, and about 3000 drivers, and 300,000 casualties, So lets add these number for the last 40 years, 671 x 40 = 26840 pedestrians were killed in 40 years of diving, and 3000 x 40 = 120000 drivers were killed in 40 years, add these up 146840, and 12000000 casualties in 40 years, I can name 146840 people that have died because of the roads, now what if all the money that has been spend on anti tobacco had been spent on better, and more roads with safety barriers on each side of the roads on “all” roads, there could be s many lives saved. I myself am a fitness fanatic, but like a smoke only when I go for a beer, you might think I could not be that fit, well I have a few unofficial World records, and would challenge any non-smoker to a fitness test. But really a little passive smoke will not harm any one. But we should all stick together, as 5 years ago I bet you did not even notice or think of smokers when you were in a pub, and this is all about freedom of choice, please view this it's very disturbing, and you just think what they could be doing with all this money, for damn sake they throw it down the drain, the 80% of the Government should not be there, they have no right, all the money should be spent on help us, and getting the ill well, with new machines for the hospitals, or saving the dieing people of the World, or a cure for all the deadly things like cancer, and with all the money they have wasted in all these years, they are now going to waste over 50 million on a smoking ban, when they can not name one person who has died or been harmed by passive smoking, total disgrace. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8130969589921300720&q=dispatches stealing your freedom, Just had this from someone from Ireland, Speaking from Ireland where we have introduced a hideous (P.C.) smoking ban, the experience is simple. On the basis that one pub a day closes here, then 15 a day will close on average in the UK as a direct result of your ban. Some will be affected more than others but, all will feel a drop in revenues. Day time trade will all but disappear and publicans will have to quickly diversify. The clever ones will firstly install a smoking room. This is essential for their survival. They will then need to provide proper food, entertainment, more stylish layout and things like wireless internet access. They will require special house nights that include brewery promotions and a table quiz etc. And all of this activity at their own expense may succeed in dampening the impact only - the ban will hurt business. Over here, in retrospect, we have heard that the publicans were a loud vocal lobby who would not discuss a compromise over the ban. This is a monumental lie. In reality, this is what we smokers (and others) expected but it never materialised. Like with disabled access where publicans were told that the provision of slipways, special toilets and new seating arrangements (at their own expense) would yield a greater turnover, the promised flood of boozing non smokers never took place, wheelchair bound or otherwise. The Government promise that massive new revenue was waiting for smoke free bars was a lie that was swallowed by the Vintners. So a stupid law was passed unopposed which benefited nobody but cost the publicans a fortune and the only winners were the off license trade. This being the case, society itself was actually the loser. All but a handful of pubs are quiet, smokers (and now non smokers) stay at home more and drink more and, the Government has their controlled (albeit drunk) society neatly in their houses with little social contact and no responsibility for them. Cigarette smoke was never any more harm to you than exhaust gases and the level of the former could be controlled by ventilation indoors whereas, there is no control over the latter. Smoking bans do not achieve their own goals; they are divisive and, with time, will be repealed. In Ireland, we followed the fanatics view and are still suffering because of it. I hope and pray that the oldest democracy in the World can be the beacon light for common sense and not just another slavish follower of American extremism, John. Wayne

Go ahead...make it a taboo. Hey, kids have never been attracted to that before! Those ads don't even work for their parents, and yet we're stuck with the pollution of airtime with brainwashing propaganda, worthy of a bathroom break and no more. And they're a negative influence. Thank goodness there's a survey to tell the sheep what they just can't figure out on their own.

Name:

Enter the text from the image to confirm you are human.(Cookies are required)

HTML tags and certain characters are removed - (numbers, letters only or post may be cut short.) certain words are banned to stop spammers. All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.