107-KM-98
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Karen Morris, (949) 824-7913, [email protected]
SMOKING REDUCTION GOALS IN U.S., CANADA UNATTAINABLE WITHOUT MASSIVE SPENDING PROGRAM, UC IRVINE STUDY SHOWS
Under-Funded and Outspent by Tobacco Companies, Public Health Agencies Need ìMassive, Sustained Effortî to Reach Stop-Smoking Goals
Irvine, Calif. - Since 1987, the U. S. Public Health Service has been working toward the goal of cutting the number of adult smokers to 15 percent of the population by the year 2000.
We arenÃt going to make it.
ThatÃs the conclusion of a study of smoking trends published today in the American Journal of Public Health. In the study, a team of American and Canadian researchers led by UC Irvine marketing professor Cornelia Pechmann found that adult smoking in both the United States and Canada has been declining at a steady rate-0.7 percent annually-for more than 20 years. But thatÃs not fast enough to meet the goal set in 1987 by the U.S. Healthy People 2000 public health initiative, and it just meets the more modest goal of 24 percent set in 1992 by Health Canada, the Canadian counterpart of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
WhatÃs needed in both countries, the researchers say, is money-lots of it.
ìPublic debate has centered on smoking and kids,î Pechmann says. ìBut we have a national goal to reduce the smoking rate in the entire population, not just among young people. Data suggest we are far from attaining our goal. We have only increased anti-smoking expenditures very slightly in recent years; we must dramatically increase spending if we are to attain this goal.
ìTobacco companies spend $5 billion or more per year to promote their products; we spend $153 million in federal funds for tobacco-related research and education, and Canada spends less than $50 million. We will have to mount a massive, sustained effort to significantly reduce smoking.î
After analyzing 15 years of data collected by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics and the Special Surveys Division of Statistics Canada, Pechmann and colleagues Philip Dixon of the University of Georgia and Neville Layne of Health Canada estimate that 20.7 percent of adults in the United States (ages 18-80) and 24.4 percent of adults in Canada (ages 15-80) will smoke cigarettes in 2000. Despite an extensive, albeit short-lived, anti-smoking campaign in Canada, and despite steady increases in U.S. tobacco research and education expenditures over the past 10 years, the rate of decline in smoking has not changed, Pechmann said. Among the studyÃs findings:
Smoking is most prevalent among 20- to 24-year-old men. In the United States, 31 percent of them smoke; in Canada, 36 percent.
In both countries, smoking is least prevalent among seniors (ages 65-80)-11 percent of U.S. senior women and 13.7 percent of U.S. senior men smoke. In Canada, 13.7 percent of senior women and 14.8 percent of senior men smoke.
The only groups expected to meet year-2000 smoking reduction goals are seniors; in fact, the seniors already have met CanadaÃs 24 percent objective and the United Statesà 15 percent objective.
Pechmann and her colleagues also cite other studies showing that after decades of stability, smoking is again on the rise among teenagers in both nations. Results of their own research show that smoking among Canadian males ages 15-19 is increasing by 0.8 percent per year.
Smoking has been and remains more prevalent in Canada than in the United States-nearly 28 percent of the Canadian population smokes, compared to 25 percent of the U.S. population. And Canadians spend considerably less on tobacco-related research and education-about 34 cents per person (in U.S. dollars) versus 58 cents per person in the United States. Yet, Pechmann says, ìweÃre not doing any better than Canada in reducing smoking. Canada funded smoking reduction efforts in spurts; we had a bigger program, with the same results.î
There are, however, regional differences in the United States. The study points out that infusions of tobacco surtax funds in California and Massachusetts have improved smoking-reduction rates.
ìFor 10 years in California, weÃve had a lot of money from the stateÃs tobacco surtax to combat smoking,î Pechmann notes. ìEach year since 1988, when the surtax was passed, we spent about $2.50 per capita on mass media anti-smoking advertising, community outreach, school-based prevention, smoking cessation programs and research. From 1990-1994, CaliforniaÃs rate of decline was almost double that of the nation as a whole, and today, only 18 percent of the stateÃs population smokes.î
If the United States implemented a national program similar to CaliforniaÃs, it would cost about $680 million per year. The cost would be $76 million per year in Canada.
In establishing national smoking-reduction objectives for the year 2000, Pechmann says, ìCanada set up a very pessimistic goal-it looked at the trend, then worked to maintain it. In the United States, we decided that we wanted to double the rate of decline, but we didnÃt put the resources behind that goal. If this country is serious about realizing its smoking reduction objectives, Congress should pass comprehensive tobacco control legislation with adequate funding for smoking prevention, cessation and research.î
###
A complete archive of press releases is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.communications.uci.edu/~inform/
RSS