O> H

CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADV ERTISIN G

Adde ndum to hea rings held June 23, 24, 25, 29, an d Ju ly 2, 1964, 

on bills reg ula ting the labeling and adv ertising of cig are ttes 

and rel ating to health problems asso ciated with smoking

(N ote.—The following statements were inadvertently omitted when 

the above hearings were printed.)

Stateme nt by J ose ph K olodny, Managing D irector, Natio nal

A ssociation of T obacco Distribut ors, Before tii e Com mittee on

I nter stat e and F oreign Comm erce, U.S. H ouse of Repr esenta ­

tive s, at th e P ubl ic H ear ing on Bills R ela tin g to Cigarettes

and S mo kin g P roducts

My name is Joseph Kolodny and I am managing director of the 

National Association of Tobacco Distributors, Inc., an organization 

speaking for the distribution arm of the tobacco and related industries 

which supply tobacco, confectionery, and a vast miscellany of other 

products to more than 1,500,000 retail outlets.

As citizens and businessmen, we do not underestimate the significance of the Surgeon General’s report alleging that cigarette smoking 

may represent a health hazard. We are, however, exceedingly apprehensive and deeply concerned that any hasty, precipitous action may 

well leave in its wake an endless tra il of anguish and untoward consequences.

We recogize that it is the duty of the Congress of the United States 

to move promptly and constructively when an alleged hazard to the 

health of the citizenry of the Nation is brought to its attention. We 

earnestly submit, however, that any measure taken should be dictated 

by a prudent evaluation of the imminence and extent of the alleged 

potential hazard as well as an in-depth study of the probable direct 

and indirect effect of the application of such remedy.

While it is obviously not within our province or competence to confron t the medical aspects of the Surgeon General’s report, it is imperative to realize though that in this tumultuous era, when bizarre and 

gnawing catastrophic situations are constantly erupting, even in the 

most unexpected and remote sectors of the world, it may be a disservice to our Nation to enact legislation tha t may undermine a basic 

American industry.

Any group or individual th at proposes a labeling program for cigarettes adverting to the hazardous consequences of their use, inescapably shoulders an immense responsibility no matter how well intentioned the objectives may be. It is well to consider whether—

(1) there is sufficient definitive information to w arra nt such a 

program.

325
326 CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING

(2) such a program wo uld reason ably s ati sfy th e aim for which 

it is promulgated.

(3) a proposed program will inure to the public inter est with ­

out unwittingly cau sing irr ep arab le harm to vast segments of t he 

Am eric an citize nry.

The wiser course would seem to dictate t hat resear ch an d scientific 

processes be given reas ona ble tim e an d supp ort, so th at the ultim ate 

resu lts will re dou nd to the benefit o f t he F ed eral, S tate, a nd m unicipal 

governm ents , the indu str y which benefits them and , ov err idi ngly, the 

gratification of the pub lic’s needs an d desires.

In our opin ion, as underscored by wid e experience with in our and 

oth er ind ustries, labelin g wou ld deter bu t few ad ul t smokers. As it 

pe rta ins to the you th, it is gospel th at the y are instin ctively eager to 

burrow into t hat wh ich is m ysterio us and forbid den. Th us, the ina dve rte nt result will be an inc lin ati on to re ga rd it as a badg e o f m atur ity 

to begin smoking cig are ttes, especially whe n the y ca rry a wa rning 

or f orbidd ing legend.

Whil e we do not c onsider ourselves qualified to dwell on the medical 

aspects invo lved in th e c iga ret te issue, it is decidedly w ith in o ur prov ­

ince (moreover, it is ou r obligatio n to the Am erican fre e com petitive 

system , if precip itous action where to be t ak en an d cig arette labe ling 

tio ning of the whole spectrum of th e un excelled A me rican distr ibu tio n 

system, if p rec ipitou s action where to be tak en a nd c igarett e 1 abeling 

were ma nd at ed :

1. Ci ga rette labelin g will have an im pact be yond th e a rea in which it 

is intended.

2. Th e labeling of c iga ret tes w ill hav e the effect of casting s lan der 

and vilific atio n on Am erica’s oldest indu str y, thereb y ren derin g it a 

ta rg et fo r all sort s o f unjustifi ed cha rges and aspersion s.

3. Labelin g will ten d to cast a shadow of suspicion on an appre ciable numb er of well-establishe d, high ly esteemed, an d pro fou ndly 

reg arded businessmen whose repu tatio n fo r hon esty and integr ity h as 

bu t few p eers in the en tire in du str ial spectrum .

4. Th e stig ma that will acco mpany the sale of cig are tte s will att ach 

itself to o the r pro ducts handled by tobacco me rch ants with resu lta nt 

irr ep arab le havoc t o the w ide spread sphere o f our economy—w ith the 

resu lta nt consequences of employment, bankrup tcies, fam ily dis ­

integ ratio n, com mun ity uproo ting, and a substan tia l increase in the 

numb er of unem ployed, plus a conside rable addit ion to the 20 perce nt 

of the populace fo r whose benefit that an tip overt y bills are in the legislative hopper.

5. Th e marke tin g of tobacco is Am erica’s oldest indu str y. I t pe rmea tes an d motiva tes the funn eli ng t o the ultim ate user of an am azing ly pro dig iou s assortment of consu mer products and durab le goods 

which imp lem ent our exe mp lary mass pro duction economy. I t is 

essential to note in this connectio n th at distr ibu tio n an d exposure of 

merchandise, on a round-the-clo ck basis to the 191 millio n Am eric an 

consumers, is the he artbea t of th e fabulou s sixties.
CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING 327

6. It is in th e distr ibution are a th at any impin geme nt upo n the 

smo oth process of making the goods avail able in every “nook and 

cr an ny ” throug ho ut the Na tion, would, ine vitab ly, cause a s ha rp c ur ­

tailm en t in the opera tio n of t he mass prod uctio n fac ilities , lea ding to 

une mploy ment and economic chaos.

7. Th e exten t of th e opera tio ns of th e wholesale tobacco indu str y, 

in assurin g an un in terrup te d flow of a m ul tip lic ity of hete rogeneous 

consum er pro ducts , is dram atically de mon str ated by its employment 

of —

(а) mo re th an 16,000 sale sme n;

(б) mo re t han 17,000 veh icle s; an d

(c) the delivery o f over 450 m illion orders annu all y, 

an d ser vin g mo re th an 1,500,000 re tail outlets.

8. I t is o f no little significance that , by and lar ge , th is m ultitud ino us 

ass ortm ent of i ndependent retail me rch ants are d evo id of any m erc antile ra ting and have em barke d into business on a prov erbial “sh oestring .” Th e who lesaler, there for e, in th is ins tan ce, no t only ful fill s 

th e functio n of a su pp lie r bu t, by exten ding cred it—bas ed pr im arily 

on the old-fashioned three C’s (ch aracter , c ap acity , an d confidence)— 

also a cts as b ank er.

9. I t is o f no lit tle significa nce th at —

(a) tobacco is the fo ur th in value am ong all a gr ic ul tu ra l crops 

of t he N atio n.

(5) more th an $8 billio n is s pent an nu ally by A me ricans on the 

enj oyme nt of tobacco prod ucts.

(c) Am erican cig arett es are a positive messenge r of good will 

throug ho ut th e wor ld.

(<Z) th e i mpa ct o f c iga rette s influences t he commercial p ur su its 

of a huge segment of o ur society.

10. Ap prox im ate ly 6,000 wholes alers an d over a millio n and a ha lf 

re ta il outlets, t og eth er w ith t he ir familie s, prov ide th e economic we llbeing of more th an 7.95 m illion persons. Let ’s not be un mindful t hat 

ove r 7.95 m illion peop le, solely in t he distrib ut io n o f tobacco pro ducts , 

rel y fo r th ei r sustenanc e pr im ar ily on th e ha nd lin g an d filling of the 

pu blic’s d emand fo r cig are ttes.

11. Much of th e exem pla ry success of th e profi cie nt Am eri can 

economic distr ibution system is str ik ingl y attrib ut ab le to cig are tte s. 

Th ey are rea dily avail able an d easily accessible th ro ug h a populou s 

assortm ent of ret ai l outlets, inc lud ing —

(a) 17,000 co rpo rat e and independent s up ermarke ts;

(6) 287,400 food sto res ;

(c) 33,400 d ru g sto res ;

(</) 267,000 eating an d dr inki ng esta blish me nts;

(<?) 69,800 liq uor, c igar, sta tio nery, an d no ve lty stor es;

(/ ) 31,600 g enera l merchand ise, syn dic ate , an d va riety sto res; 

(g) 81,000 service s tatio ns ;

(A) 21,200 hotels, motels, a nd in ns; tho usan ds of bowling* alleys, 

jew elry stores, r oadstan ds, etc.
328 CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING

12. Kindred and collateral products are incalculable beneficiaries 

of low-cost, speedy, and economic distribution of cigarettes with 

marked savings to the consuming public. Included among the products benefiting by such “acceleration” ar e:

baby needs

candy and confectionery prod ucts

Christmas decorations

cigars

clocks

cough drops

creams and lotions

deodorants

elec tric shavers

film

first aid s

fou nta in supplies

gift wrap and ribbon

gloves

greetin g card s

grocery and food products 

gum

home perm anen ts

insect repe llants and insecticides

ligh t bulbs

lipstick s

matches

medicines

nail polish

notions

nylon hosiery

paper bags

pap er cups

pap er napkins

party decorations

pipes

playing card s 

razors and blades 

san itary napkins 

school supplies 

scotch tape 

shampoos

shaving accessories

shoe polish

smokers’ accessories

snuff

soups

socks

stationery

stra ws

sunglasses

sun tan lotion

talcum powder

thermos products

thread

tissues

tobacco

toothbrushes

tooth pa ste and powder

toys and novelties

underwear

watch bands

watches

writin g instruments

13. Should any action tend to interfere with the distribution of 

cigarettes then, to a greater or lesser degree, the distribution of a vast 

miscellany of products essential to the consuming American public 

will be hindered with the inescapable outgrowth of higher costs to the

consumer.

Peculiar, and perhaps even unbelievable to some, the versatility of 

the package of cigarettes in the sphere of the American economic fabric is not only incalculable, but manifestly indispensable. On frequent occasions, we nostaligically refer to the corner “poppa and momma store.” We affectionately allude to the erstwhile general store with 

its “potbellied stove” which, in bygone years, operated as the virtual 

“town hall” of the community. We fondly recall the local apothecary 

that ostensibly functioned as an “emergency clinic.” These and similar enterprises are sympathetically alluded to as “real Americana” 

with all of its memorable overtones.

It is these outlets tha t characterize the sinews and heartbeat of the 

American melting p ot at its noblest. It is historically beloved homespun outlets th at provide the inspiration, the encouragement and drive 

for an ever-expanding and greater America—a land which has flourished and prospered into the mightiest nation on earth, buttressed 

not only by its genius in the world of science, technology, and production but, overridingly, by the energetic entrepreneurs who today 

operate a preponderant percentage of the one and a half million retail 

outlets. A great many of these merchants ventured into business
CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING 329

enterprises armed solely with courage, diligence, a few packages of 

cigarettes, a few bars of candy and a handful of trinkets. It is th is 

multiplicity of outlets, dottin g every main street and corner thro ugh ­

out the Nation t hat are peopled by diligent, conscientious, and industrious entrepreneurs, whose incomes, generally speaking, rarely compare with tha t of gainfully employed factory workers. They 

symbolize a far-flung cross-section of American citizenry also encompassing :

(1) Retired people who are intent upon maintaining activity 

as well as gratifying their erstwhile longing to engage in business 

on their own.

(2) Physically handicapped who strive to eke out a livelihood 

and concurrently avoid becoming public charges.

(3) Newlyweds who set out to build a future by exercising 

their inherent American initiative to embark on a business career 

to succeed or bust.

(4) Ambitious people who are disinclined to be employed by 

others and elect to “run their own business.”

Cognizant as we are tha t no individual or group has a license or 

right to enjoy or derive material benefits when the health of the 

citizenry is allegedly at stake, we do n ot feel t hat the situation is so 

critical as to warrant precipitous action, the result of which would 

tend to jeopardize and disrupt the business activities of hundreds of 

thousands of independent entrepreneurs who are availing themselves 

of the American freedom of opportunity.

The situation surrounding cigarettes is not in any way static; extensive and constant research is engaged in at numerous levels and 

countless sources. All these are intent upon removing, if such element 

is unearthed, any ingredient or molecule that may even remotely reflect, upon the pleasure derived by consuming this remarkable and 

unique creation of Mother Ear th.

Stateme nt of tiie T elevision B ure au of A dvertising, I nc ., S ubmitted to tiie Com mittee on I nter stat e and F oreign Commerce

of t ii e H ouse of R epr ese ntatives, in O ppo sit ion to Cert ain B ills

P endin g Before the Com mittee Relating to th e A dvertising of

Cigarettes

The statement is submitted by the Television Bureau of Advertising,

Inc., in opposition to H.R. 9655 (Blatn ik), H.R. 9657 (Ding ell), H.R. 

9808 (Riehlman), and any other bills th at may be pending before the 

committee which would or could have the effect of imposing new or 

special limitations or restrictions on the advertising of cigarettes. It 

is respectfully requested that this statement be included in any printed 

record of hearings to be held by the committee in connection with such 

bills.

The Television Bureau of Advertising is a nonprofit business league 

created and supported by television stations, station representative 

groups, and networks. The principal purpose of the bureau, which has 

offices in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, is to promote t he use 

of television as an advertising medium.
330 CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING

Because cig are tte advertisin g con trib ute s s ub sta ntially to television 

revenues, we are na tura lly concerned with any proposed legisla tion 

th at would unjustifi abl y or unnecessarily inhibit the freedo m of 

cig are tte advert isers a nd th ere by reduce th eir incentive to advertise on 

television. H.R. 9655 a nd H.R. 9657, which would dir ect the Fe deral 

Tr ad e Commission to require th at every cigaret te adv ertisement includ e a w arn ing th at cigare tte smoking is inj uriou s to health, and H.R. 

9808, which would autho rize the Commission to pre scribe by regu lation cau tionary statem ent s to be include d in all cigaret te ad vertisements, a re examples of such legis lation. It seems clear tha t, should legislation of this typ e be enacted, cig are tte ad ve rtisin g on television 

wou ld substan tially dim inish, i f not dis ap pe ar a ltoget her .

Our opp osition to bills like H.R. 9655, II.R . 9657, and H.R. 9808, 

is not, however, based prim arily on the loss of cig are tte ad ve rtisin g 

revenue—possibly in excess of $130 million an nu all y—that would result fro m th eir ado ptio n. Ou r fundam ental concern is with the pr ecedent th at ena ctm ent of any special legisla tion of this type would 

esta blish.

Ciga rette ad vertisin g on telev ision is cu rre ntly sub ject to the same 

sta nd ards and res tricti ons th at prod uct ad ve rtisin g general ly is sub ­

jec t to. We believe this is as it should be. Th e princ ipal app licable 

pro vision of law is section 5 of the Fe de ral Tra de Commission Ac t, 

which aut hor izes the Comm ission to proh ibit any ad ve rtisin g which 

it finds to be false or mislead ing. In ou r view these general stan dards are sufficient to prote ct the public from unjus tified or otherw ise 

impro per advertisin g claims. Subje ct to the lim ita tio ns reflected in 

section 5 of the Fe de ral Tr ad e Commission A ct, advertis ers —whet her 

of c iga rettes or any o ther pro duct—shou ld be fre e t o stress the affirmative case fo r their prod uct witho ut ha vin g to set fo rth in th ei r ads a 

pres crib ed set of negat ive fa cts or hypotheses d esigne d to u nd erc ut the 

affirm ative message. Th e concept of “equal tim e,” ap pr op riate in 

politics, is out of place in pro duct ad ve rtisin g—p artic ul arly where, 

as here, the case again st the pro duct has been so publiciz ed in rece nt 

yea rs th at there is p robably not a user in the country who is unaware 

of it.

We think th at any legisla tion which goes beyond the gener al stan dard s of section 5 of the Fe deral Tr ad e Commission Ac t is unnecessary and could des troy a vit al stim ulus to ou r economy. Our economy is a co mmercial one—t hat is, ind ividual bu ying decisions, backed 

by ind ividual pu rch asing power, determ ine bo th its shape or direc ­

tion and, in large measure, its m agnitude o r rat e of activity. Pr od uc t 

advertisin g stimu lates consumer dem and, whi ch in tu rn leads to in ­

creased pro duction and sales. These in t urn pr ov ide em ployment an d 

tax revenues. In short , prod uct advertisin g pla ys a cru cia l role in 

pro mo ting economic grow th.

We believe th at if Con gress imposes special res tricti on s on the ad ­

vertisin g of one pa rtic ul ar ind ustry , it effectively restr icts th at in ­

du stry ’s purc hases, its employment, its pro duction, its sales, its taxes, 

and its profits. Moreover, if i t app lies such res tric tions to one ind ustry it necessarily sets a preced ent for the impos ition of sim ila r o r comparab le res tric tions on other ind ustries . In short, such acti on could 

soon lead to the imposition of dea den ing commercial res tricti ons on 

ou r entire natio nal economy.
CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING 331

The tradition al and generally accepted purpose of advertising is 

to attra ct people to the product or service advertised. To do this, the 

manufacturer presents the positive side of his product or service, in 

a manner he bel ieves will best show the public the role his product can 

fill. This, we believe, is the historical and proper role of advertising 

in our free society. The public, by its own evaluation of the positive statements made by competitive products or services, and taxing 

into account its own independently acquired knowledge, based on 

reading, observation, and experience, makes up its own mind and 

makes the final decision with its own purchasing dollars.

We do not advocate economic growth or stimulation through any 

deception. Product advertising must be truthful. It must be responsible. It cannot mislead. But we seriously question whether 

advertising would continue to exist as an economic stimulant if every 

advertisement were required to state or call attention to every possible 

risk tha t may be associated with use of the product.

Everyone knows, for example, tha t automobiles can kill. Yet if 

automobile manufacturers were required to recite this fact in every 

automobile advertisement, the positive message that the advertisement 

was meant to convey, the advertisement’s affirmative effect, would be 

substantially reduced. We do not think the public interest would be 

thereby served.

We cannot accept the proposition that advertising has the additional function or obligation of setting forth the case against the 

advertised product or service—whether that case be proved beyond 

a doubt or only suspected. Where a product or service is accepted 

in commerce, and the advertising is not false and misleading, manufacturers should not be compelled to remind consumers of what they 

already know. Such requirements cannot be justified as necessary to 

prevent deception, which we believe is the only proper standard to 

apply. . . , . . . A rule tha t would require recital of known risks can, m our view, 

only be explained by a desire to reduce the effectiveness of advertising and thereby discourage manufacturers from employing this tr ad itional selling tool. We believe a manufacturer should not be required to criticize himself in his advertising.

As long as a product is a recognized, legitimate article of commerce, 

and as long as the advertising does not misrepresent the product, we 

believe the manufactu rer in his advertising properly has the same freedom of expression as t hat available to an individual. This becomes 

particularly clear when we remember that mass media advertising is 

actually nothing but an extension of person-to-person selling.

As already noted, laws and interpretive decisions already exist 

to prohibit and prevent advertising misrepresentation. We cannot 

believe additional legislation is required to safeguard our citizens from 

the asserted danger of candy, automobiles, products in aerosol containers, electric ligh t sockets, amateur athletics, gasoline, beer, cigarettes, or being overweight.

We are deeply concerned with the establishment of a precedent for 

restrictions placed upon advertising tha t extend beyond the already 

regulated areas of misrepresentation. If one product is required to 

advertise its possible disadvantages, is not a precedent set by which 

all other products should be required to advertise their possible dis-
33 2 CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING

advanta ges? It is one th in g to require ad ve rtisin g to be trut hf ul , not 

to deceive. I t is anoth er to impose such res tricti ons or lim itations 

upon i t so as to dissuade advertis ers from com mu nicating the affirm ativ e story they h ave to tell. Suc h a policy amounts to p roh ibitionism, 

whi ch we firmly believe is neith er ju st nor, as we have suggested, 

sou nd policy. We can not believe th at legislation such as H.R. 9655, 

H.R . 9657, or H.R. 9808, would be in the A me rican tra di tio n of fre edom of speech, whe ther by i ndu stries, comp anies or individuals.

Respe ctfu lly subm itted.

Norm an E. Cas h,

President, Television Bureau of Advertising, Inc.

A Stateme nt by th e A ssociation of Natio nal Advertisers, I nc., 

Bearing U ton ti ie T obacco Legislation H earings of th e I I ouse

Commerce C omm itte e

The Association o f N ational Ad vertiser s (h ereina fter re ferre d to as 

AN A) is a non profit membership o rganiza tio n which was fou nded in 

1910 to represent the intere sts or companies which use advertisin g to 

an important exten t in th eir sales, pub lic relations, and marke tin g 

operations. The asso ciation is ded icated to the furth eran ce of the 

science of ad vertisin g; the elim ina tion of w aste and inefficiency in the 

process of distr ibut ing products and serv ices; th e safeg ua rding of 

the essential values in a dv ertising as an instr um en t f or in ducin g sales; 

and the promot ion of the common int ere st and we lfare of its members 

as buyers of adv ert ising, an d otherwise .

Cu rre nt membersh ip in th e A NA consists of approx im ate ly 700 companies rep res enting a wid e cross section of industry. For instance, 

the ANA mem bers hip by indu str ial classific ation is as follows:

Number of Industr y members

Agricultural equipment___________________________________________ 8

Automotive_____________________________________________________ 6

Automotive accessories____________________________________________ 16

Brewing________________________________________________________ 10

Building materials______________________________________________ 32

Chemicals______________________________________________________ 50

Clothing and textiles_____________________________________________ 55

Drug and toiletries______________________________________________ 57

Electrical equipm ent______________________________________________ 10

Food and grocery_______________________________________________ 61

Indu stry trade associations_______________________________________ 11

Insu rance_______________________________________________________ 23

Jewelry, optical, photographic, sports goods________________________ 25

Liquor and wine________________________________________________ 27

Metals, basic____________________________________________________ 22

Nonelectrical household furnishings________________________________ 10

Office equipment_________________________________________________ 28

Paper__________________________________________________________ 10

Petroleum______________________________________________________ 35

Soaps, cleansers, polishes_________________________________________ 21

Soft drinks_____________________________________________________ 8

Tire and rubber________________________________________________ 7

Tobacco________________________________________________________ 8

Trav el and transp ort ation________________________________________ 30

Ind ustrial (other than metals or c hem icals)_________________________ 81
CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING 33 3

Simila rly , the A NA mem bership is representativ e of both the most 

extensive use rs of ad ve rtisin g such as Ge neral Mo tors, Pro ct er & 

Gam ble, General Foo ds, etc., and ma ny sm aller ad ve rti se rs as well. 

In fac t, while ap proxim ate ly 75 perce nt of AN A members inv est ov er 

$1 million in ad ve rtisin g annually , almost 100 mem ber com pan ies spe nd 

less th an $500,000 each year.

AN A members, qu ite obviously , use every ad ve rti sing me diu m in 

their adve rtisin g pro gra ms. Th ey rep resent the bulk of th e na tio na l 

su pp or t fo r television as 87 of th e 100 le ad ing users of t h at m edi um ar e 

AN A members. However, the ad ve rtisin g inv est me nts of concern s 

rep res ent ed in AN A are also the principa l su pp ort of mo st na tio na l 

lhagaz ines, new spapers, business papers, an d th e ou tdoo r medium 

as well.

Th e membership of A NA , o f course, h as a wid e geograp hical dis tr ibut ion as concerns involved in t he assoc iation ’s ac tiv ities ar e h ea dq ua rtered in virtu ally every ma jor city across th e c ountr y. Th e g eo gr ap hi ­

cal distrib ution of th e asso ciation is even mo re pro nounced whe n the 

plan ts and distr ibution fac ilitie s of its mem ber com pan ies are take n 

into acco unt.

AN A enter tai ns, a nd voices, no opin ion reg ar ding the re latio ns hip— 

or lack of one—between cig arette smoking and public healt h. Our 

asso ciation presen ts this sta tem ent because of th e pu bli c importa nce 

of ad ve rtisin g as an economic force. Our position wou ld be qu alitat ive ly th e same if, ins tea d of cigaret tes , thi s co mm ittee were st ud ying 

any other class of pro ducts.

Th e go verni ng objective—yo urs an d the AN A’s alike—is to serve the 

public’s tru es t inte rests. The pro blem is with com plexity , no t with 

pur pose. Overs implification m ay be tempting, bu t it rarely pro vid es 

a sound basis for legisla tion .

Ph ysica l he alth an d economic he alt h are bo th vi tal to pu bli c wellbein g. Neither s hould be im pa ire d to serve th e othe r unless no way 

can be foun d w hich will nur tu re both.

Effective a dv ertising is sine gua non to the economy ou r Na tio n enjoys tod ay. W ith ou t it there wou ld be littl e vigo r in com petition, or 

stimu lus to th e m ass distr ibution which su pp orts mass p rodu cti on and 

feed s mas s consum ptio n.

W ith ou t ad ve rtisin g revenues, many of ou r r ad io and tele vision sta ­

tio ns w ould cease to ex ist, o ur magazines an d newspapers would fold, 

and tho se media re main ing wou ld hav e t o c harge the p ublic such hi gh 

pri ces th at the gr ea t enter tai nm ent, social awaren ess, an d kno wledg e 

values of t hese med ia, whi ch we a lmo st tak e fo r gr an ted toda y, w ould 

be av ailabl e only to a fewTh e anten na e of ou r association are, there for e, finely tun ed to the 

st ir ring of tren ds or tenets, governm ental or otherw ise, which may 

pr ol ifer at e to stifle th e robust functio n of advertis ing .

Th e v ariety of bills before y ou r com mittee on th e subject of ci ga rette 

ad ve rtisin g pre clu des ou r com pet ent analysis of the m in de tail at th is 

tim e. In general, however , we exp ress dis ap prov al of any device fo r 

imposin g a sort o f em ine nt domain up on an a dv ert ise r—a com ma ndeer ­

in g of his com mu nicatio ns to th e p ublic—to compel th e tran sm iss ion of 

go vernental ly ord ain ed messages.

We recognize, and do no t qu arrel with, the prop osition th at an ad ­

vertisem ent cannot conte nt its elf with a ha lf-tru th , and th at , to the
33 4 CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING

exten t f ur th er inf orma tio n is r equir ed to obv iate de ceptive ness in w hat 

an adve rtiser h as elected to say, he sho uld n ot be allo wed to stop short 

of trut h. Bu t section 5 of th e Fe de ral Tr ad e Commission Ac t empowers the Commission to enjo in any ad ve rtiser who ind ulg es in such 

deception. Th e bills wi th which we are now con cern ed are of a 

different natu re.

I t is no t with the pre venti on of deception th at they are concerned. 

No new law is needed fo r th at . Rathe r, they seek to tu rn the per ­

suasive powers of ad ve rtisin g to ward dis couraging peo ple fro m purchasing or sm oking cigarette s.

Th e vital fun ction of adve rtisin g in our economy is to sell, not to 

unse ll. I f Congress believes th at a given prod uct (a narco tic, fo r example) is i nhere ntly dan gerous —or shou ld be u tilize d only by certa in 

people un der pa rti cu la r circumstance s—it sho uld re strict the use and 

sale o f the comm odity itself. If , however , it is wi lling t hat the item 

be fre ely ava ilab le to the pub lic, it should no t erode the ind ependent 

and im po rtan t economic fun cti on, advertisin g. Th e pre cedent would 

be an insidio us one and, once ino cul ated, ha rd to con tain .

Gover nment al dicta tio n of wha t mu st ap pe ar in ad ve rti sin g would 

be tan tamou nt to pr ohibi tio n. Th e co mpositio n of an ad vertisem ent is 

a h ighly s killed an d s pecialized process. We kn ow th at seemingly in ­

significant changes in a ph ras e—or even of a w ord —ma y seriou sly alter 

its effectiveness. Ad vertisers are not likely to ris k th e mon eys t hat are 

need ed to ru n a camp aig n wh ich features copy the y feel will defea t 

th e ver y purp ose of thei r in vestment.

We are confident t hat yo ur com mittee’s pe rceptive analy sis of this 

sit ua tio n will lead i t to conclude th at the natio nal interest will not be 

well served by imposing a form of b ondag e upon advertisin g.