Public and media responses to the first tobacco litigation trial in New Zealand (Pou versus Bat).
McCool, Judith P. ; Freeman, Becky ; Thomson, George 等
Abstract
This paper focuses on awareness of and attitudes towards issues
arising from New Zealand's first tobacco litigation trial. It is
based on a national telephone survey and a content analysis of related
print and radio media relating to the trial. Interviewees showed a
moderate level of awareness about the trial and verdict. Only a minority
supported the plaintiff (Janice Pou) in her claim for damages against
the tobacco companies. The majority of support was in favour of the
tobacco companies (68%). The reasons cited for this support included:
the information about the effects of smoking was widely known at the
time Pou became addicted, she did not try hard enough to quit, and the
tobacco companies reasonably informed the public about the effects of
smoking their products. In contrast, the majority of media coverage
about the trial and verdict was in favour of Janice Pou, or neutral.
Thus, contrary to expectation and the support of the media, the New
Zealanders' surveyed were reluctant to support litigation as a
means of addressing the costs to the country caused by smoking-related
illness. Tobacco industry denormalisation strategies could help to shift
public support in favour of litigation and corporate accountability.
BACKGROUND
Janice Pou was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2001. After watching a
television programme about the deceptive behaviour of tobacco companies,
she started legal proceedings against British American Tobacco New
Zealand (BAT). She died in 2002, and the case was continued by her
estate. In essence, the case argued that the tobacco companies failed to
adequately inform the public about the risks associated with tobacco
smoking, despite evidence that these risks were well appreciated by the
two companies at the time Janice Pou started smoking in 1968 (aged 17
years). Ms Pou's case also argued that by the time the full health
risks of tobacco use were public knowledge she was heavily addicted to
smoking. The case went to trial in the New Zealand High Court in
February 2006. The judgement released 10 weeks after the end of the
trial found that the tobacco company had adequately informed smokers of
the dangers of smoking cigarettes and that Janice Pou was "under a
duty to immediately take reasonable steps immediately to stop smoking,
but she did not do so" (Lang 2006).
Up until 2006 tobacco companies in New Zealand enjoyed a
litigation-free providence, having not been held accountable in a court
of law for any of the health effects or deaths caused by the use of
their products. The media attention aroused by the Pou v. BAT case was
testament to the audacious nature of the trial. The media were treating
New Zealanders to a rare glimpse of the face of the New Zealand tobacco
industry, an industry kept largely in the background while their
products themselves remain dominant in retail outlets across the
country. There was little precedent for this type of trial, and we could
only look abroad to evidence of success or otherwise. Australia has
gained some tobacco litigation experience in the past decade, with
McCabe v. British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) being particularly
conspicuous due to evidence of document destruction, which ultimately
led to BATA's defeat in the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2002.
Wakefield and colleagues conducted a thematic frame analysis of
Australian newspaper coverage of the McCabe v. BATA trial. They found
that messages were either positively or negatively slanted and tended to
frame the debate around "smoking as an individual choice for which
smokers are responsible", or "tobacco companies were dishonest
and needed to be controlled by government" (Wakefield et al. 2003).
In conclusion, the authors drew attention to the implications of these
responses from the media, suggesting the need for more effective public
communication about the nature of addiction to tobacco and the health
implications of being addicted to smoking.
Tobacco litigation offers considerable opportunity to advance the
objectives of tobacco control and is argued to be more than merely a
battle of (disproportionate) power between corporate body and individual
citizen. Litigation cases, particularly when they are uncommon, as in
Australia and New Zealand, generate considerable publicity about the
effects of smoking and the behaviour of the tobacco industry. As noted
by Liberman, litigation also plays a significant regulatory function by
raising the price of tobacco products (to cover liability costs) and
providing compensation to the victims, among other effects (Liberman
2004, Daynard 2003). New Zealand has a comparatively successful tobacco
control record: adult smoking prevalence rates are now 19.9% and smoking
among adolescents and young people is also steadily declining (Ministry
of Health, 2008). New Zealand has generally responded sympathetically to
the introduction of smoke-free policies, the most recent being a ban on
smoking in bars and restaurants in December 2005 (Thomson and Wilson
2006), and the introduction of graphic warnings on tobacco products is
to be phased in from 2008 (O'Connor 2007). These strategies are
undoubtedly contributing to the overall decline in smoking prevalence.
However, until 2006 there had been no litigation case in New Zealand to
recover costs from the tobacco industry responsible for promoting and
selling products that have catastrophic consequences on health.
The Pou v. BAT trial presented a unique opportunity to evaluate
public opinion on tobacco litigation in general, while seeking to
identify some of the pervasive beliefs that underpin support for, or
resistance to, the role of litigation as a possible new tool for tobacco
control in New Zealand. The aim of this study was to explore the
awareness of, and attitudes towards, the Pou v. BAT trial, including
differences by demographic factors and by source of information. Beliefs
about the addictiveness of tobacco were assessed in order to explore
possible underlying factors influencing attitudes towards litigation in
New Zealand. It was expected that those who perceived that it was not
difficult to quit smoking would be less likely to be in support of the
Pou case and therefore would be less likely to support litigation
against tobacco companies in general. Socio-demographic and smoker
status differences in support of litigation were also anticipated, as
were group differences in awareness and recall of the trial.
METHODS
Sample
A national sample of 750 adults (aged over 18 years) participated
in a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey between 13 and
17 May 2006. Interviews were conducted by market research company UMR
Research in the week following the announcement of the verdict of the
Pou v. BAT litigation trial. UMR operates under the jurisdiction of the
Association of Market Research Organisations (AMRO) and is accredited to
conduct telephone surveys.
Procedure
Telephone numbers were sourced from a directory of residential and
commercial addresses. The sample was stratified by geographical
location, which included 23 directory regions in New Zealand. A
filtering strategy was employed to ensure only private households were
telephoned. A maximum of five call-backs were made to households with
no-response. In addition, the interviewers offered to call back at more
convenient times to ensure the sample was as representative as possible.
Data collection was weighted by age, sex and household size in order to
achieve appropriate proportions of the sample in each region.
Questionnaire
The brief questionnaire included 20 items, the majority of which
concentrated on the issue of awareness of, and attitudes towards, the
Pou v. BAT tobacco litigation trial. Standard socio-demographic
information was collected, including age, sex, Maori (2) or non-Maori
ethnicity, and income level. Trial-specific items included: (unprompted)
awareness of the trial (response yes or no); and for those aware of the
trial, awareness of the outcome of the trial (response yes or no), and
source of information about the trial (newspaper, television, radio,
internet, magazines, family/friends) (response yes or no). Those aware
of the trial who were unsure or incorrect about the trial result were
told of the outcome. All those aware of the trial were asked about who
should have won the trial (Janice Pou or BAT) and on what basis
(open-ended). For the whole sample, additional items also assessed
opinions about tobacco addictiveness (on a five-point scale from
"not at all" to "extremely addictive") and tobacco
companies' openness about the risks of smoking (on a five-point
scale from "not at all" to "fully"), and two items
assessed the perceived impact of the outcome of the trial for smokers
and for the tobacco companies (open-ended).
Data Analysis
Data from the completed questionnaires were entered into SPSS (3)
version 12.0. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and proportions
were used to report results from the primary-level analysis of each
item. Further analyses were conducted to assess socio-demographic
differences across the main outcome items: awareness of the case,
opinion about the verdict, and the basis for beliefs about the outcome
of the trial. The point estimates represent results from weighted data.
Media Analysis Coding Procedure
Our sample included news / current affairs coverage of the Pou v.
BAT trial in all national daily newspapers and the three standard news
channels (TV1, TV3 and Prime television) from 1 January 2006 to 12 May
2006. This covered the period of highest media coverage of the case, and
was likely to be the most influential for forming participants'
knowledge and opinions because of the scale and recent proximity.
Articles included in the analysis had to refer to the Pou v. BAT case
specifically for at least five lines. The selection of media articles
was focused on articles relating specifically to, or referencing, the
Pou v. BAT trial. Keywords for the search therefore included
"Janice Pou" and "British American Tobacco" and/or
"WD & HO Wills".
The print media article samples were purchased from the Chong media
clippings (Chong Media Bureau 2006) and the television footage and radio
newsbytes were purchased from the University of Auckland's Robert
and Noeline Chapman Archive (University of Auckland 2006).
Coding Framework
A coding system was developed based on the methodology presented by
Durrant et al. (2003), which was in turn based on the work of
Clegg-Smith et al. (2002). A modified version of the methodology was
adopted for the present study. Articles were analysed by the coding team
to determine the opinion slant in each of them. An article was coded pro
or anti if it included more than one statement indicating bias to either
side of the case. Each article was coded only on the basis of the
strongest slant deciphered by the coder. The coding framework was agreed
upon between three members of the research team, but only one member
undertook the media content analysis.
RESULTS OF CONTENT ANALYSIS
A total of 108 news articles were extracted between 1 January 2006
and 12 May 2006. This included: 29 (27%) from national newspapers, 78
(72%) from local newspapers and one magazine article. Of the total
sample (n = 108) of print media stories, three-quarters 75% (n = 81)
were news stories, 16.7% (n = 18) were letters to the editor, and 8.3%
(n = 9) were opinion pieces and editorials. The articles were coded as:
pro-Janice Pou (n = 50, 46.3%), neutral (n = 30, 28%), anti-tobacco
industry (n = 16, 15%), anti-Janice Pou (n = 10, 9.3%) and pro-industry
(n = 2, 1.9%).
Between 1 January and 12 May 2006, 21 stories were presented in
radio and television media. Of the total sample (n = 21) for television
and radio, over half (52.4%, n = 11) appeared on TV1, 23.8% (n = 5) were
from Radio New Zealand, 14.3% (n = 3) were from TV3, and 9.5% (n = 2)
were from Prime TV. The stories were coded as pro-Janice Pou (n = 12,
57%) or neutral (n = 9, 43%) and anti-Janice Pou (n =10, 9.3%).
RESULTS OF SURVEY
In total, 750 interviewees completed the telephone survey from a
sample of 2,953 New Zealanders aged over 18 years, resulting in a 25%
overall response rate. The survey data were weighted according to age,
sex and household size; a 92% weighting efficiency was achieved,
suggesting that the sample obtained closely represented actual
population demographic characteristics (Table 1).
The sample comprised 10.9% Maori (n = 82) and 89.1% non-Maori (n =
668). Males made up 47.8% (n = 359) of the sample and females 52.2% (n =
391). Smokers made up 18% (n = 137) of the sample, and 36% (n = 222) of
the sample were ex-smokers. The sample population was slightly older,
with better income, and included fewer smokers and Maori, compared to
the proportions represented in the general population.
Awareness of Trial
Participants were asked whether they were aware of a high court
trial between the estate of Janice Pou and BAT. Unprompted responses
indicated that 82.5% (n = 619) of the total sample were aware of the
trial, 16.1% (n = 121) were unaware of the trial and 1.3% (n = 10) were
unsure. When a standard description of the trial was read to
participants who were previously unaware or unsure of the trial (n =
131), 25.2% (n = 33) then reported that they now recalled being aware of
the trial, while 74.8% (n = 98) remained unfamiliar with the trial.
Thus, when prompted, 652 (87%) were aware of the trial.
Of the total sample who were aware of the trial (n = 652), 76% (n =
493) were aware of the trial verdict, 21% (n = 137) did not know the
outcome and 3% (n = 22) were unsure. Of those who were aware of the
trial, older participants (over 60 years) were more likely to report
being aware of the outcome than others. Maori participants (n = 49, 69%)
and current smokers (n = 80, 69%) were less likely to report being aware
of the outcome of the trial compared to non-Maori (n = 413, 76%) and
non-smokers (n = 413, 77%).
Recalled Details about the Trial
Of those who had heard of the trial (n = 652), 56% (n = 365) said
they were unable to recall specific details about the trial. A further
80 (12%) were unsure, and were found to not recall specific details. Of
those who did recall details about the trial (n = 207), the details
included: Janice Pou died before the case was resolved and her family
continued the trial (29%, n = 60); Janice Pou was suing BAT because they
failed to warn her about the risks of smoking (25%, n = 52); and Janice
Pou stated that she was unaware of the risks of smoking before she
started smoking (17%, n = 35). The remainder of the sample recalled
other details of the trial, including that Janice Pou was too addicted
to quit (15%, n = 31) and that BAT argued that Janice Pou knew the risks
and could have quit if she tried (14%, n = 29).
Opinion on the Outcome
Of the sample who were aware of the trial (unprompted and prompted)
(n = 652), 65% (n = 421) said that BAT rightfully won the case; 13% (n =
84) felt that Janice Pou should have won the case, and 23% (n = 147)
reported being unsure. More males compared to females (17% vs 9%; p <
.01), Maori compared to non-Maori (21% vs 12%; p = .05) and smokers
compared to non-smokers (18.3% vs 11.7%; p =. 107) reported that Janice
Pou should have won the case.
Table 2 presents the open-ended responses to the question "On
what basis do you think that, in your opinion, BAT should have won this
trial" by those who said that BAT rightfully won the case (n =
421). The most common responses by this group (interviewees could give
several responses) included: "information about smoking risks was
widely available" (39.1% n = 165), and it was "her personal
choice and responsibility that she chose to smoke" (34 %, n = 143).
Of those who supported Janice Pou (again, interviewees could give
several responses) (n = 84), the majority of participants suggested that
"the risks of smoking were unknown at that time" (54.8%, n =
46), "tobacco companies were deceptive about the risks" (31%,
n = 26), "smoking was more socially acceptable then" (26.2%, n
= 22), and "smoking is addictive and therefore difficult to
quit" (25%, n = 21).
General Attitudes towards Addiction and Tobacco Litigation in New
Zealand
Perceived addictiveness of tobacco smoking was assessed on a scale
from 1 (very addictive) to 5 (not addictive). The results showed that
55% (n = 410) of all 750 participants perceived that smoking is
"very addictive", compared to 22% (n = 166) who reported that
smoking is moderately addictive and 6% (n = 44) who considered it
slightly or not addictive; 17%, (n = 130) were unsure. Among the sample
of current smokers (n = 137), 65%, (n = 89) perceived that smoking is
very addictive compared to 53% (n = 325) of the 613 current non-smokers,
F(1,800) = 4.370, p < .05. An analysis of variance between groups was
conducted to determine whether preference for the outcome of the trial
was associated with perceived addictiveness of smoking; the results
showed that those who believed that smoking was moderately addictive or
not addictive were more likely to support BAT compared to those who
thought smoking was highly addictive F(5,651) = 2.332, p < .05.
Of the total sample (n = 750), 55%, (n = 412) believed that tobacco
companies informed the public about the risks of smoking, 26% (n = 195)
were neutral or unsure, and 19% (n = 143) felt that tobacco companies
did not adequately inform the public about the risks of smoking.
Similarly, 38% (n = 285) did not think the tobacco industry was
responsible for the health effects or deaths caused by smoking
cigarettes, 32% (n = 240) were unsure and 30% (n = 225) stated that the
industry was responsible. Furthermore, there was little support for the
New Zealand Government to sue tobacco companies for the recovery of
taxpayer-funded health care costs due to smoking. Of those who responded
to this item (n = 749), 65% (n = 487) were not supportive and 27.7% (n =
207) were supportive; 7.3% (n = 55) were unsure. Males were more likely
to support suing (31%, n = 113) compared to females (24 %, n = 95), as
were participants aged less than 40 years (58%, n = 120) compared to
participants aged over 40 years (42.3%, n = 88), although the
differences were not statistically significant (p = .406).
DISCUSSION
This study was undertaken to explore New Zealanders' opinions
of the recent tobacco litigation case between BAT and the family of
Janice Pou. Overall, awareness of the trial was high, with the majority
of participants sourcing information from newspapers and television.
Media stories were generally either sympathetic to Janice Pou or were
perceived to be unbiased. The New Zealand media did not, however, place
responsibility with the tobacco industry.
The Support for BAT and its Implications
The majority of the participants thought that BAT rightfully won
the trial, citing that smokers were "aware of the risks" and
"it's a matter of individual choice and responsibility".
Other possible reasons for majority support for BAT (or against
individual claims) may reflect a general distaste for the introduction
or mainstreaming of corporate litigation cases in New Zealand, or a lack
of knowledge of the opportunities for tobacco control progress with
tobacco litigation (Wakefield et al. 2003, Hammond et al. 2006). It is
also possible that the New Zealand public remain relatively uninformed
about the behaviour of tobacco companies, due to their low profile in
this country. Despite the apparent high awareness of the addictiveness
of tobacco smoking, there may remain in New Zealand (as elsewhere) a
fundamental belief in the individual's responsibility for
decision-making and health behaviours. This belief may also be
confounded by the current (relatively) high level of public knowledge of
the health risks of smoking that makes it difficult for people to
imagine a time when these health risks were not known by most adults.
A belief in self-reliance rather than hand-outs may underpin the
reluctance to support an individual claim for damages against the
tobacco company. It is also possible that the New Zealand public are
resistant to litigation for fear that it may lead to large monetary
rewards for individual smokers and their families, precluding the
opportunity for thousands of other equally worthy smokers and
ex-smokers. As Wakefield and colleagues (2003) found in their analysis
of news media coverage of the McCabe trial, the Australian media were
reluctant to show support for Rolah McCabe for several reasons, one of
which was fear of the "slippery slope"--that a win for McCabe
might invite others to follow. New Zealand's legislative and
cultural landscape is generally not supportive of personal injury
litigation. Legislation formulated in 1972, further amended in 1982 and
1992, established the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance
(ACC) scheme. This landmark legislation established a publicly funded
no-fault compensation system for the vast majority of accidents and
injuries (Campbell 1996). Given the lack of personal injury suits in New
Zealand, it is perhaps not surprising that the public is not supportive
of those seeking compensation.
Among those who agreed that BAT should have won the trial, more
than a third felt that Janice Pou could have quit if she had really
tried-- indicating a lack of sympathy for those who do not manage to
overcome their addiction to nicotine. Compared to smokers, nonsmokers
were significantly less likely to say that tobacco is very addictive,
suggesting that a significant proportion of the population underestimate
the nature of nicotine addiction. Those who perceived that smoking is
not very addictive were more likely to express support in favour of BAT,
and therefore appeared less likely to support litigation against tobacco
companies in general.
Other studies have identified that smokers and the public
underestimate the extent of illnesses caused by smoking (Hammond et al.
2006, Schoenbaum 1997, Strecher et al. 1995) and that would-be smokers
underestimate the addictiveness of smoking (Romer and Jamieson 2001).
This suggests that the public may wrongly assume that smokers are
knowingly responsible for their situation. In Canada, Ashley and Cohen
(2003) found that although there was public support for some regulatory
measures against the tobacco industry, the majority of the sample
considered that the tobacco industry was not mostly/completely
responsible for smoking-related illness, and were not supportive of
suing for taxes lost from smuggling.
Results from the New Zealand survey reveal a reluctance to
challenge the status quo when it comes to tobacco industry conduct in
this country. The small proportion of anti-tobacco industry (as opposed
to pro-Pou) articles in the sample period suggests a reticence about
presenting stories that challenge fundamental beliefs about corporate
autonomy and individual responsibility, as identified by Wakefield and
colleagues (2003). Furthermore, it is possible that the low profile of
the tobacco industry's operations in New Zealand (i.e. no
advertising or explicit promotion) may be highly effective in reducing
the public awareness of industry conduct. Unlike in the United States,
tobacco industry denormalisation themes, such as plain packaging (which
raise awareness about tobacco industry responsibility) have seldom been
the focus of tobacco control initiatives in New Zealand (Laugeson and
Swinburn 2000, Thomson and Wilson 2005a, Hersey et al. 2005).
Changing public perceptions and increasing support for stronger
tobacco control measures are possible, and media representations of
tobacco issues remain a highly effective public communication and
monitoring tool. Media coverage of tobacco control issues continues to
demand attention, particularly when events of public interest arise,
such as the introduction of graphic warning labels on cigarette packets.
Morning newspapers, evening television news and work-breaks are vehicles
of critical consumer / public policy opinion. Public support for
smoke-free bars remained low for several years prior to the legislation
that banned smoking in all New Zealand workplaces. Only 38% of people
supported smoke-free bars in an April 2001 opinion poll, but this number
almost doubled to 69% just five years later in April 2005 (Thomson and
Wilson 2006). This suggests that increasing public familiarity with
tobacco industry denormalisation strategies may lead to increased public
support for litigation as part of a broader tobacco control agenda.
Limitations
Interpretation of the results of this study needs to take into
consideration several limitations. Firstly, the low response rate from
the telephone sampling procedure creates the possibility of selection
bias in the sample. As previously acknowledged, the sample population
was comparable to the general population on gender and ethnicity, but
was slightly older, there were fewer smokers, and the average income of
participants was higher than the population median.
The survey was also carried out immediately following the verdict,
but this was 10 weeks after the trial had actually ended. The coverage
of the case in the media peaked when the case was being heard and also
when the verdict was reached. Because of the time from the end of the
trial, the recall of the trial may have been compromised or altered at
the time of the survey. The survey was carried out in the week after the
verdict was announced, so there is the possibility that the opinions of
the judge helped to determine some of the participants' opinions,
rather than the evidence given in the trial. A survey before the verdict
would have avoided this possibility. The inability to recall trial
details by 445 of the 652 who recalled the trial indicates that opinions
about the trial may have been based on little information except for the
verdict.
In addition, no specific time period was included in the question
addressing whether the tobacco industry adequately informed the public
about the risks of smoking. Given that the industry has publicly
acknowledged some of the health consequences of smoking in recent years,
the answers to this question may have been distorted by this recent
change. Finally, the media content analysis was conducted on media
collected over the four months from just before the High Court trial
started (January 2006) to after the verdict was announced (May 2006).
There is potential for further content analysis of the media from the
start of publicity about the case (2001) to the present to enable a
fuller, more representative analysis.
The public may now be better positioned to receive robust
information about the behaviour of tobacco companies and the role of
litigation as an effective tobacco control measure. Clearly, the
interest sparked by the Pou v. BAT trial was evidence of the depth of
interest and opinion about the case, supportive or otherwise, and these
debates are necessary for tobacco control in New Zealand to move forward
as a truely comprehensive public policy strategy. The Pou v. BAT case
captured the essence of the most fundamental and resilient issues
underpinning tobacco control efforts internationally: tobacco industry
accountability and responsibility, lack of sound public knowledge about
addiction, and awareness of the continued surreptitious nature of
tobacco promotions. Until there is strong public support, it is unlikely
that the political and legal climate will sufficiently change for
successful legal action (either inquiries or litigation). Even the
enforcement of present New Zealand laws on tobacco companies, such as
those about deceptive statements in trade, requires political decisions
on funding and government structures, and has political consequences
(Thomson and Wilson 2005b).
Conclusion
Despite significant advances in tobacco control, public attitudes
toward the Pou v. BAT trial reveal the broad discomfort within the New
Zealand public regarding legal confrontation with the tobacco industry.
There are several possible reasons for this, including a limited
understanding of several key features of tobacco use (such as the
irresponsible behaviour of tobacco companies) and the considerable
pressure on youth to take up smoking. Alongside continued support for
reducing uptake and quitting support, tobacco control advocacy efforts
should focus on increasing the profile of anti-industry messages in news
media coverage (Farrelly et al. 2002). Tobacco industry denormalisation
strategies may be one way to raise awareness of tobacco industry
behaviour and shift public support in favour of litigation and corporate
accountability.
REFERENCES
Ashley, M., and J. Cohen (2003) "What the public thinks about
the tobacco industry and its products" Tobacco Control,
12:396--400.
Campbell, I. (1996) Compensation for Personal Injury in New
Zealand: Its Rise and Fall Auckland University Press, Auckland.
Chong Media Bureau Ltd (2006) Newspaper clippings, 1 January--12
May 2006, New Zealand. newsclips@chong.co.nz.
Clegg-Smith, K., M. Wakefield, C. Seibel (2002) "Coding the
news: The development of a methodological framework for coding and
analysing newspaper coverage of tobacco issues" Impac Teen Research
Paper Series, 21.
Daynard, R. (2003)"Why tobacco litigation?" Tobacco
Control, 12, 1--2.
Durrant, R., M. Wakefield, K. Clegg-Smith, and S. Chapman (2003)
"Tobacco in the news:
An analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues in Australia,
2001" Tobacco Control, 12, ii75--ii81.
Farrelly, M.C., Healton, C.G., K.C. Davis and P. Messer (2002)
"Getting to the truth: Evaluating national tobacco
counter-marketing campaigns" American Journal of Public Health,
92(6): 90--7.
Hammond, D., G.T. Fong, M.P. Zanna, J.F. Thrasher and R. Borland
(2006) "Tobacco denormalisation and industry beliefs among smokers
from four countries" American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31
(3):225--232.
Hersey, J.C., J. Niederdeppe, W.D. Evans, J. Nonnemaker, S. Blahut,
D. Holden, et al. (2005) "The theory of 'truth': How
counter-industry campaigns affect smoking behavior among teens"
Health Psychology, 24:22--31.
Lang, J. (2006) Pou v British American Tobacco (New Zealand)
Limited and WD & HO Wills (New Zealand) Limited. HC AK
CIV-2002-404-1729 (12 April 2006), p. 110, para. 399.
Laugeson, M., and B. Swinburn (2000) "New Zealand's
tobacco control programme 1985-1998" Tobacco Control, 9(2):
155--162.
Liberman, J. (May--June 2004) "Litigation and its current role
in tobacco regulation" NSW Public Health Bulletin, 15:102--103.
Ministry of Health (2008). A Portrait of Health: Tobacco Use.
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf
O'Connor, D. (n.d.) Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Packets,
www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=27591 [accessed
31/5/07].
Romer, D. and P. Jamieson (2001) "Do adolescents appreciate
the risks of smoking? Evidence from a national survey" Journal of
Adolescent Health, 29(1): 12--21.
Schoenbaum, M. (1997) "Do smokers understand the mortality
effects of smoking?" American Journal of Public Health,
87:755--759.
Statistics New Zealand (2006) New Zealand Census Data,
www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006census-data/default.htm [accessed 26/4/06].
Strecher, V., M. Kreuter and S. Kobrin (1995)"Do cigarette
smokers have unrealistic perceptions of their heart attack, cancer, and
stroke risks?" Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18:45--54.
Thomson, G., and N. Wilson (2005a) "Directly eroding tobacco
industry power as a tobacco control strategy" New Zealand Medical
Journal, 118 :U1683, www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1223/1683/.
Thomson, G., and N. Wilson (2005b) "Implementation failures in
the use of two New Zealand laws to control the tobacco industry:
1989--2005" Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 2 32.
Thomson, G., and N. Wilson (2006) "One year of smokefree bars
and restaurants in New Zealand: Impacts and responses" BMC Public
Health, 6:64.
University of Auckland (2006) Television news footage, 1 January to
12 May 2006. Robert and Noeline Chapman Archive, University of Auckland.
Wakefield, M., K. McLeod and K. Clegg-Smith (2003) "Individual
versus corporate responsibility for smoking-related illness: Australian
press coverage of the Rolah McCabe trial" Health Promotion
International, 18(4):297--305.
Judith P. McCool (1)
Department of Social and Community Health
School of Population Health
University of Auckland
Becky Freeman
School of Public Health
University of Sydney
George Thomson
Department of Public Health
Wellington School of Medicine
Sneha Paul
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH, NZ)
(1) Correspondence Dr Judith McCool, Department of Social and
Community Health, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and
Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,
Auckland. Email: j.mccool@auckland.ac.nz
(2) The indigenous people of New Zealand.
(3) A data mining, statistical analysis tool for the social
sciences.
Table 1 Demographic comparison of the New Zealand population and
the survey population
New Zealand Survey / number
population * population
Gender (Male) 49% 48% 359
Ethnicity (Maori) 15% 11% 82
Smoking status (smoker) 23% 18% 137
Median age 36 years 35-39 yrs 107
Median income $24,000 $40,000 --
* Based on 2006 New Zealand Population Census data (Statistics
New Zealand 2006).
Table 2 Reasons given for why BAT/ Wills tobacco companies should
have won the trial (n = 421)
%
Information on smoking widely available 39.1
She knew the risks (16%)
There is information in the public domain and freely available
then and later (18.1%)
The dangers of smoking are written on the packet and
information is given at school 5%
Personal choice and responsibility 34.1
It was a personal choice / done of own free will (27.5%),
Companies produce hazardous items, but should take
responsibility for her actions 6.6%
Could have quit if she tried / strength of character 31.6
If she had wanted to give up she could have (20.7%)
I managed to stop smoking and so could she (3.3%)
She didn't have the strength of character to give up, and
should have tried harder (4.8%)
She had man chances to give u 1.4%
Common sense 18.7
Everyone knows that smoking kills (12.1%)
Ignorance is no excuse (3.1%)
It's common sense that it's bad for you 3.5%
Disagree with suing culture 4.0
If she'd been successful where would it have stopped? (1.9%)
Don't approve of "the suing culture"; should take personal
responsibility / company not responsible / I wouldn't
sue (1.1 %)
She was just after the money for her children 1.0%
Weak legal case 2.0
Her legal case was not strong and the judge was right 2%
Other 5.6
* Data were based on 64% of respondents who were aware of the trial
and felt that BAT should have won
