Revisionist History on Health and Tobacco
More on Jack Calfee, who recently died. David Henderson relates that Calfee wrote “a beautiful piece of economic history,” summarized as follows:
[The] sweeping tobacco settlement appears to herald a new era in which heavily regulated cigarette makers must disclose the true health hazards of their products and make do without popular mascots like the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel. Sounds like a clear case of government acting to fix a problem that free markets could not, right? Not quite. Until the 1950s, cigarette companies advertised some of the dangerous health consequences of smoking, and it was the government–specifically, the Federal Trade Commission–that stopped them. This all-but-forgotten story is a fascinating account of how the market was ahead of the government in publicizing the dangers of smoking, and of the damage done by government regulation. Because regulation has prevented the cigarette companies from discussing health, they have settled for emphasizing glamor and hipness. Joe Camel is a monster the FTC helped create.
This is amazing. I’ve never heard that the early years of tobacco marketing included anything but image and flavor hype.
Really interesting post. I’ve never heard of any of this before.
Fascinating. This is a good post.
For years it’s been an open secret that smoking can be hazardous to your health. Yet some people are willing to take the risk. I would think that full disclosure would the best way for firms that sell potentially harmful products to avoid getting sued. I had never heard that the FTC prevented tobacco companies from discussing the health aspect of their products.
Revisionist History indeed.
Hollywood stars and starlets were encouraged to smoke on stage and in film to create a glamorous setting for smoking.
Erik, are you a conspiracy theorist?
What’s interesting here is that the government made things worse, not better.
Nancy, are you old enough to remember this fact? Do you not remember that tobacco companies used to sponser TV shows?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/6/1516
From the article:
“The tobacco industry has long recognized the value of smoking in movies to promote cigarettes and developed extensive programs to promote smoking in the movies.1 After the US Congress held hearings on smoking in the movies in 1989 in response to the revelation that Philip Morris paid to place Marlboros in the film Superman II,”
So government made it worse right?