114 replies to this topic

[Craven Morehead]

Quote

Originally posted by stevewf1
So what is sponsorship exactly?

Is it still sponsorship if a tobacco company wants to pump money into a race team without any logos, advertising or any kind of public recognition of said money?

"Sponsor: One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group"

So I'd say that Marlboro are def a sponsor. However, they do not put their name on the car these days. And I'm pleased to see that awful shade of orange/ red sent off to the dustbin. Ferrari racecars are meant to be crimson (as Murray used to say, bless'im)

[Rinehart]

Quote

Originally posted by Zoony


Please refer to Section 10, Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, 2002:-

10. Prohibition of sponsorship

(1) A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a tobacco product in the United Kingdom.

(2) A sponsorship agreement is an agreement under which, in the course of a business, a party to it makes a contribution towards something, whether the contribution is in money or takes any other form (for example, the provision of services or of contributions in kind).

[Note- No mention of branding at all; merely accepting support of some kind is all it takes to commit an offence in the UK.]

The full act can be found here:- http://www.opsi.gov....a_20020036_en_1

There is probably no question of the Ferrari sponsorship being anything other than 'legit' in Italy, but it would not be 'legit' if, say McLaren, or any other UK-based team were to accept sponsorship from a tobacco company. That is my point:- Some teams are subject to different laws than others.

The F1 Championship is an International one, and I am confident that as long as the FIA made it clear that any directive by them banning tobacco sponsorship was being imposed to 'make the championship fair for all participants, regardless of nationality', they would have no problem with the aforementioned lawyers. Arguably, by failing to do so they are promoting an unfair championship, which no doubt ought to have another set of lawyers on their back. In any event, they won't know until they try it. They just do not seem to want to try it.

No you refer to it. Ferrari and Philip Morris aren't breaking clause 1 or 2 - I thought I'd explained that.

[Rinehart]

Quote

Originally posted by alfa1



A bit more google searching, and the EU law in question appears to be
Directive 2003/33/EC

The claim that BRANDING has anything at all to do with the laws is false.
A reading of the law shows that ADVERTISING and SPONSORSHIP are the only matters.

Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "tobacco products" means all products intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed inasmuch as they are made, even partly, of tobacco;
(b) "advertising" means any form of commercial communications with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting a tobacco product;
© "sponsorship" means any form of public or private contribution to any event, activity or individual with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting a tobacco product;


To my mind, Ferrari's deal with Philip Morris is certainly in contravention of (b) and ©. The Barcode is certainly advertising, even if it is not a formal trademark or 'direct'.

I see where a couple of you are confused. If Phillip Morris pays money to Ferrari to put the barcode on the car, not their brand logo, it is not Sponsorship, since you are not advertsing.

[Rinehart]

Quote

Originally posted by stevewf1
So what is sponsorship exactly?

Is it still sponsorship if a tobacco company wants to pump money into a race team without any logos, advertising or any kind of public recognition of said money?

No its not. Well put.

[Garagiste]

Quote

Originally posted by Rinehart

I see where a couple of you are confused. If Phillip Morris pays money to Ferrari to put the barcode on the car, not their brand logo, it is not Sponsorship, since you are not advertsing.

But what about calling the team 'Scuderia Ferrrari Marlboro'?

[Rinehart]

Quote

Originally posted by Craven Morehead


"Sponsor: One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group"

So I'd say that Marlboro are def a sponsor. However, they do not put their name on the car these days. And I'm pleased to see that awful shade of orange/ red sent off to the dustbin. Ferrari racecars are meant to be crimson (as Murray used to say, bless'im)

Clearly Philip Morris are not banned from giving a Charity millions of pounds. That could fall under this definition of a 'sponsor' so I think we need to be a little careful about what definition of SPONSORSHIP the ATAL covers and it doesn't prevent unbranded investment, period. What Ferrari is doing has nothing to do with Italian Law singularly.

[Zoony]

Quote

Originally posted by Rinehart


No you refer to it. Ferrari and Philip Morris aren't breaking clause 1 or 2 - I thought I'd explained that.

That is exactly my point! They are not breaking the law because, by virtue of Ferrari being Italian, and not UK-based, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO IT!

It is not any illegality on anyone's part that I am trying to point out.

What I am trying to point out is simply the unfairness that exists when certain parts of every grid are able to legally raise money from sources which other parts of the grid are forbidden, by law, from using.

[lukywill]

Quote

Originally posted by simpson
The whole point of cigarette advertising is to promote the idea that you can take chances and beat the odds.

So, sure, your dad or a friend of a friend’s mother got heart problems, lung problems, emphysema, circulatory problems and died a horrible death, but not 100% of smokers do. You’ll beat the odds, just like the cool people taking part in this dangerous cool activity do (mostly, any way, up until the early 80s, but car racing is still regarded as a dangerous sport).

This is the kind of thing that encourages teenagers to ignore the warnings and take up the rather dirty and disgusting life-long addiction.

indeed.

tobacco is an addict toxic drug.
just imagine the winner of a gp injecting heroin in the podium.
i'm all for liberal and legal use of drugs but no advertising.

[VresiBerba]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta
Not really. If you are a smoker, you may be tempted by adverts from cigarette companies. Just as if you are a burger eater, you may be tempted by McDonalds adverts.

Perhaps, but people who start to smoke does so because of a reason, and if that reason is even in the vicinity of a single percent because of adertising, people DO start to smoke, because of advertising.

In just about fifty years the worlds population has increased by a factor of two. I'd like to think that the amount of smokers has increased far greater than that, which could only mean that people pick up the habit of smoking, not only switching brand.

And really, even if the percentage is status quo now from fifty years and still is, at lets say ten percent, which I severely doubt, there are now at least 300 million more smokers today than fifty years ago. Why do you think that is?

Quote

I have yet to see proof that McDonalds adverts convert vegetarians to eat meat.

That's an absolutely ridiculous analogy, which by the way contradicts your above statement that the purpose of advertising is to make people SWITCH brand. Switching sallad for meat is... well, a switch. And that's not even touching the concept that man is somewhat dependent on consuming food, to even survive. Smoke is not.

[Josta]

Quote

Originally posted by simpson
The whole point of cigarette advertising is to promote the idea that you can take chances and beat the odds.

So, sure, your dad or a friend of a friend’s mother got heart problems, lung problems, emphysema, circulatory problems and died a horrible death, but not 100% of smokers do. You’ll beat the odds, just like the cool people taking part in this dangerous cool activity do (mostly, any way, up until the early 80s, but car racing is still regarded as a dangerous sport).

This is the kind of thing that encourages teenagers to ignore the warnings and take up the rather dirty and disgusting life-long addiction.

So sure, your dad or a friend of a friend's mother got Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease, a Stroke, Hypertension, hypothyroidism, Dyslipidemia, Hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, Congestive heart failure, Angina pectoris, Cholecystitis, Cholelithiasis, Osteoarthritis, Gout, Fatty liver disease, Sleep apnea, Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), Fertility complications, Pregnancy complications, Psychological disorders, Uric acid nephrolithiasis (kidney stones), Stress urinary incontinence, and Cancer of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, esophagus, prostate and gall bladder, but not 100% of burger eaters do.

This is the kind of thing that encourages teenagers to ignore the warnings and take up the rather dirty and disgusting life-long addiction.

BTW, FAR more people die from obesity related diseases than smoking related diseases. If you want to start banning dangerous products, you need to start looking at food before ciggarettes.

[VresiBerba]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta
BTW, FAR more people die from obesity related diseases than smoking related diseases. If you want to start banning dangerous products, you need to start looking at food before ciggarettes.

Again, food is a prerequisite to human survival, smoke is not.

[simpson]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta
BTW, FAR more people die from obesity related diseases than smoking related diseases. If you want to start banning dangerous products, you need to start looking at food before ciggarettes.

This thread is about why tobacco advertising is banned. If you want to discuss the health benefits of avoiding fatty foods, you could start up another thread.

The addictive nature of tobacco is known and the power of advertising to dupe youth is known. Put two and two together.

[pingu666]

i think, back in the day (30's to 60's) alot more of the western population smoked, as a % anyways..

[Josta]

Quote

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Again, food is a prerequisite to human survival, smoke is not.

Burgers aren't a prerequisite to human survival. They do kill more people though.

[Mat]

Quote

Originally posted by VresiBerba
In just about fifty years the worlds population has increased by a factor of two. I'd like to think that the amount of smokers has increased far greater than that...

thats a very strange thing to say.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta


Burgers aren't a prerequisite to human survival. They do kill more people though.

And so do killer tomatoes. The movies are proof of that.

I'd ban nicotine based hamburgers too ... although it seems that nicotine injested through the stomach won't kill you ... but through the lungs it will.

Get real.

Ferrari and the cigarette company acted fast to step around the rules and formed an agreement for sponsorship. The FIA then later, chose to ignore the cigarette branding that is on the Ferrari. The Ducati also has similar branding. The cigarette company has got around euro legislation there too.

Why? My guess is that the tobacco company bribes the right people.

[jondon]

If tobacco sponsorship of sporting events subliminally coerces people to smoke, and all the nasty consequences of smoking can be blamed upon such advertising, then alcohol and gambling are at least worthy of the same kind of prohibition...
Sadly, I know more than a few families who have been irretreivably destroyed by either alcohol and/or gambling addictions. I have also witnessed within my own extended family the consequences of smoking tobacco, yet I personally believe the effects of alcohol and gambling to be much more devastating both short and long term.
Just as an example, the majority of people like to listen to music... Your favourite band may use Gibson or Fender guitars and will usually be sponsored to play them. This sponsorship will not force non guitar playing music lovers to suddenly buy guitars, but the guitar playing fans of bands may be influenced by this sponsorship to buy a particular brand over another.

Just my two cents to add to the discussion but worth at least ten cents to me....

[VresiBerba]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta
Burgers aren't a prerequisite to human survival.

And neither is smoke, much much less so, in fact. People need to eat to survive, be it burgers, unions or filét mignon, it doesn't matter, you have to eat or you'll die. Smoking is pleasure, eating is vital. It's just as simple as that.

[VresiBerba]

Quote

Originally posted by Mat
thats a very strange thing to say.

Why? Do you really think that the amount of smokers are the same now as they were fifty years ago despite the fact that the world population has doubled in those fifty years?

[equality]

I agree with the banning of tobacco proucts but i do remember some prophetic words from someone ten years ago.

He said that if you banned tobacco sponsoring, there would never be enough companies to be found who want to pay as much as the tobacco dudes. And that in the end, that would mean the end of the privateers and that F1 would become a manufacturers toy, wich they would dump whenever they got bored or economy tightens. And look where we are ten years on.

[VresiBerba]

Quote

Originally posted by equality
I agree with the banning of tobacco proucts but i do remember some prophetic words from someone ten years ago.

He said that if you banned tobacco sponsoring, there would never be enough companies to be found who want to pay as much as the tobacco dudes. And that in the end, that would mean the end of the privateers and that F1 would become a manufacturers toy, wich they would dump whenever they got bored or economy tightens. And look where we are ten years on.

The only team I can think of that was lost because of the tobacco-ban, is Jordan. But then Midland took over, just to be replaced by Spyker and down the line, now Force india runs the ship, neither worse nor better than Jordan with their tobacco sponsorship.

So much for the loss of tobacco money.

[equality]

Arrows
Prost
BAR (british american tobacco)
And while Sauber is now BMW, he was also a privateer.
And Minardi collapsed too. Stoddart waited till Minardi offered him the team for close to nothing. Toyed with it and then also collapsed.

Williams lost winfield and since then, struggled like hell.
Benetton/Renault was on the verge of pulling out when mild seven stepped out.
West left a stubstantial void on the Mclarens for a while.

So imo the loss of tobacco money did have a big impact.

[Zoony]

Quote

Originally posted by simpson


This thread is about why tobacco advertising is banned.

As OP of this thread, can I again point out that it is not supposed to be about why tobacco advertising is banned.

Rather, it is supposed to be about the unfairness of Italian teams, (ie. Ferrari), being able to legally receive massive funding from a source which is denied to UK-based teams, and questioning why the FIA is apparently not doing anything to redress that unfairness.

(Although I do concede that I may have phrased the title of it better than I did...)

[Garagiste]

Quote

Originally posted by VresiBerba
...People need to eat to survive, be it burgers, unions or filét mignon,

Blimey, even Thatcher wasn't that radical.

[HoldenRT]

There has been alot of jibberish in this topic that has completely avoided the reason the topic was made in the first place.

Should cigerrette advertising be banned or not? Who knows, who cares.

The point is that Ferrari and Ducati are circumventing the rules and allowed to recieve sponsorship money from Marlboro while the other teams are not.

Ban cigerrette advertising for all, or ban it for none. Simple enough to understand.

[lukywill]

in some countries tobacco adds are not banned.

same thing for teams: ferrari isn't a uk team.

would you expect a team from saudia arabia to ask every other team to renounce alcohol sponsorship?

[Dudley]

Quote

Originally posted by Zoony
The publication of the 2009 F1 entry list yesterday, and its inclusion of 'Scuderia Ferrrari Marlboro' as an entrant reminded me that Max promised that he was going to ban tobacco from F1. Wasn't it 'by 2006' or thereabouts?

They, and the EU, were going to ban it at the end of 2006.

The EU ****ed them over and brought it forward 18 months without warning, F1 told them to "piss off then" and abandoned their own ban.

[carbonfibre]

Quote

Originally posted by HoldenRT
There has been alot of jibberish in this topic that has completely avoided the reason the topic was made in the first place.

Should cigerrette advertising be banned or not? Who knows, who cares.

The point is that Ferrari and Ducati are circumventing the rules and allowed to recieve sponsorship money from Marlboro while the other teams are not.

Ban cigerrette advertising for all, or ban it for none. Simple enough to understand.

And as long as that isnt the case (a ban on cigarette advertising everywhere) then Ferrari and Ducati are doing absolutely nothing wrong. They arent breaking any laws nothing.

[equality]

stttt!!! You are taking away the ammunition to have a good ferrari bash ;)

[Zoony]

Quote

Originally posted by HoldenRT
The point is that Ferrari and Ducati are circumventing the rules and allowed to recieve sponsorship money from Marlboro while the other teams are not.

Well, actually, the point is that they're not circumventing the rules. The point is that the rules perhaps ought to be amended by the FIA to make it fairer.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It's really straightforward. Ducati and Ferrari aren't based in the UK, and their sponsors aren't either.

I had a tobacco deal shut down because of fears the Home Office could prosecute the UK company despite having a sponsorship campaign (legally) in another country.

[Josta]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


And so do killer tomatoes. The movies are proof of that.

I'd ban nicotine based hamburgers too ... although it seems that nicotine injested through the stomach won't kill you ... but through the lungs it will.

Get real.

Ferrari and the cigarette company acted fast to step around the rules and formed an agreement for sponsorship. The FIA then later, chose to ignore the cigarette branding that is on the Ferrari. The Ducati also has similar branding. The cigarette company has got around euro legislation there too.

Why? My guess is that the tobacco company bribes the right people.

In 2007, 160,000 people in the US died from lung cancer, which is primarily caused by smoking.
In 2007, 500,000 people in the US died from CHD, which is primarily caused by eating fat.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification. Smoking increases risks of CHD, and not all lung cancer is caused by smoking, but the simple fact is that eating crap and being fat kills lots and lots of people, yet I have yet to see any move to ban advertising McDonalds despite the fact that they target children.

By your guesses, the big fast food chains bribe even better people.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta


In 2007, 160,000 people in the US died from lung cancer, which is primarily caused by smoking.
In 2007, 500,000 people in the US died from CHD, which is primarily caused by eating fat.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification. Smoking increases risks of CHD, and not all lung cancer is caused by smoking, but the simple fact is that eating crap and being fat kills lots and lots of people, yet I have yet to see any move to ban advertising McDonalds despite the fact that they target children.

By your guesses, the big fast food chains bribe even better people.

Maybe you should blame lack of exercise for people being fat? Such a conclusion IMO is closer to the truth. If you want to obtain tasty calories, fast food provides it more cheaply. That is the free market for you. Fast food is not addictive if consumed occasionally. If fast food chains provided healthier food, maybe its possible that healthy food would become cheaper too? But I guess you would still want mass manufactured franchise food banned - because people attack tobacco consumption. To label tobacco and food as being similar, is to cover up the tobacco issue with loads of bullshit.

The real point is that red and white super market labeling on the Ferrari is a blatant tobacco brand - and the EU and the FIA allow Ducati and Ferrari to use the tobacco branding. The reason the FIA allows Ferrari and Ducati to use tobacco branding is because the FIA is corrupt.

[Slartibartfast]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta


In 2007, 160,000 people in the US died from lung cancer, which is primarily caused by smoking.
In 2007, 500,000 people in the US died from CHD, which is primarily caused by eating fat.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification. Smoking increases risks of CHD, and not all lung cancer is caused by smoking, but the simple fact is that eating crap and being fat kills lots and lots of people, yet I have yet to see any move to ban advertising McDonalds despite the fact that they target children.

By your guesses, the big fast food chains bribe even better people.

In the UK, 'fast food' may not aim advertising at children.

http://www.publicati.../04110.1-i.html

Apparently they aren't as good at bribery as Bernie.

[Josta]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Maybe you should blame lack of exercise for people being fat? Such a conclusion IMO is closer to the truth. If you want to obtain tasty calories, fast food provides it more cheaply. That is the free market for you. Fast food is not addictive if consumed occasionally. If fast food chains provided healthier food, maybe its possible that healthy food would become cheaper too? But I guess you would still want mass manufactured franchise food banned - because people attack tobacco consumption. To label tobacco and food as being similar, is to cover up the tobacco issue with loads of bullshit.

The real point is that red and white super market labeling on the Ferrari is a blatant tobacco brand - and the EU and the FIA allow Ducati and Ferrari to use the tobacco branding. The reason the FIA allows Ferrari and Ducati to use tobacco branding is because the FIA is corrupt.

TBH, I think that you are trying to cover up the biggest problem with a load of bullshit. I am no Ferrari fan, (and as for Ducati, I know bugger all about bikes, nor care about them). I do however, see the hypocrisy in the smoking advertising ban.

If Marlboro showed adverts that depicted a clown smoking a fag, and gave toys to children that bought their products, I would condemn them for it. Smoking kills, no doubt about it. However, fast food kills more, no doubt about it. Coronary heart disease kills more people in the western world than the following 7 diseases put together. Yet McDonalds are allowed to advertise to kids. Burger King, for example, have been sued in a class action lawsuit due to the trans fatty acids used that have been proven to cause CHD.

Tobacco advertising is doing exactly the same as Ronald McDonald, except it doesn't target kids, and it kills less people. If Tobacco needs to be banned from advertising, then why not fast food? As I child, I never understood what the the tobacco adverts were about. Adults did, and those that smoked probably took them in. I can guarantee that every kid knows that Ronald McDonald means getting a toy though. Whilst they are consuming this crap, they are infecting their bodies.

If you are in favour of tobacco advertising bans, surely you must be in favour of fast food peddlers advertising, otherwise you are just jumping on a bandwagon.

[Slartibartfast]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta


In 2007, 160,000 people in the US died from lung cancer, which is primarily caused by smoking.
In 2007, 500,000 people in the US died from CHD, which is primarily caused by eating fat.

According to the NHS (UK), approximately 20% of CHD-related deaths in men and 17% in women can be attributed to smoking.


http://www.nhs.uk/Co...What-is-it.aspx

"Today, tobacco consumption is recognised as the UK’s single greatest cause of preventable illness and early death with more than 114,000 people dying each year from smoking-related diseases including cancers" - Cancer Research UK


http://info.cancerre...s/lung/smoking/

[myF1dream]

I still smoke JPS even though it is past memories from the period and that is because of the impression left on me when I was young. Motorsport did not get me into smoking though that was my choice when I grew into an adult.

It does show how effective the advertising is though that I will smoke JPS 20+ years on because of the impact it left on me.

I will say that I thought that going down to the local car auctions when I was young left more of an impression getting me into smoking that watching F1 ever did.

PC gone mad again, there needs to be some caution but as adults we all make choices good and bad.

**************************
MYF1DREAM - the future is near

[Scoots]

My brother was in the hospital for 5 months with pretty much nothing to do but read and watch TV ... he saw so many commercials when he got out he wanted me to drive 1.5 hrs to take him to the nearest Sonic for some special drink they had advertised the hell out of. Advertising works a lot better than you think it does.

That said, I think if the UK based teams want tobacco sponsorship they can move to a country that allows them to accept it. In the UK when Ferrari is listed on a program does it say Marlboro Ferrari? Couldn't the UK teams, McLaren for instance say that they are receiving no money from BAT but still have the name in the team name? "No, we accept no money from BAT, BAT pays Mercedes HQ in Germany and Merc has upped their yearly financial involvement in McLaren." Problem solved.

[Josta]

Quote

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


According to the NHS (UK), approximately 20% of CHD-related deaths in men and 17% in women can be attributed to smoking.


http://www.nhs.uk/Co...What-is-it.aspx

"Today, tobacco consumption is recognised as the UK’s single greatest cause of preventable illness and early death with more than 114,000 people dying each year from smoking-related diseases including cancers" - Cancer Research UK


http://info.cancerre...s/lung/smoking/

Ahh, now here we come to NHS studies again. FACT = CHD is caused by atherosclerosis. In other words, fat clogs the arteries. Now smoking has been said to do this, however please point me towards a single study that proves this. I have done extensive research into this and basically it comes from American's who don't like to admit that they are at risk from fat. FACT = fat clogs the arteries. THEORY = smoking also does this. THEORY is not backed by any clinical studies.

However, if we accept these findings......

If you look at your statistics, what it basically means is that 20% of men who die from CHD are smokers, meaning that 80% aren't. The NHS as well as every other health authority in the world will always blame smoking for something because it is easy. They don't need to prove anything, and once again, please point me towards an independent study that contradicts this.

Now exactly how smoking can clog arteries with fat more than fat is a mystery.

Even if you take your 20% of men and add 17% of women, (which is obviously rediculous), this means that 155,000 more people die from non smoking related CHD per year than those who die from lung cancer, and 315,000 more people die from non smoking related CHD than smoking related CHD.

Once again, I am not saying that smoking is safe. I am saying that smoking kills, but you are saying that 63% of the biggest killer in the western world is attributable to people eating fast food, yet you think it is ok for them to advertise to children.

[tifosi]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


The reason the FIA allows Ferrari and Ducati to use tobacco branding is because the FIA is corrupt.

No, its because if they tried to stop them they'd be sued out of existence.

[Slartibartfast]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta


Ahh, now here we come to NHS studies again. FACT = CHD is caused by atherosclerosis. In other words, fat clogs the arteries. Now smoking has been said to do this, however please point me towards a single study that proves this. I have done extensive research into this and basically it comes from American's who don't like to admit that they are at risk from fat. FACT = fat clogs the arteries. THEORY = smoking also does this. THEORY is not backed by any clinical studies.

However, if we accept these findings......

If you look at your statistics, what it basically means is that 20% of men who die from CHD are smokers, meaning that 80% aren't. The NHS as well as every other health authority in the world will always blame smoking for something because it is easy. They don't need to prove anything, and once again, please point me towards an independent study that contradicts this.

Now exactly how smoking can clog arteries with fat more than fat is a mystery.

Even if you take your 20% of men and add 17% of women, (which is obviously rediculous), this means that 155,000 more people die from non smoking related CHD per year than those who die from lung cancer, and 315,000 more people die from non smoking related CHD than smoking related CHD.

Once again, I am not saying that smoking is safe. I am saying that smoking kills, but you are saying that 63% of the biggest killer in the western world is attributable to people eating fast food, yet you think it is ok for them to advertise to children.

I don't know where you got the conclusions you come to here.

I am not saying that "63% of the biggest killer in the western world is attributable to people eating fast food, yet you think it is ok for them to advertise to children."

Did you follow the links provided?

The NHS study claims that 20% of CHD deaths in men can be attributed to smoking and 17% of CHD deaths in women can be attributed to smoking. This is not the same as saying that 20% and 17% respectively were smokers. Nor do I or the NHS claim that the remainder can be attributed to fast food. The NHS study lists 8 risk factors, smoking is at the top, obesity is listed seventh.

I am not a medical researcher and have no specialist knowledge in the field, but I do believe that to suggest that an NHS study will blame smoking simply because 'it is easy' is unjustifiable.



You appear to be asking for an independent study that contradicts your claim that they don't need to prove anything.
Perhaps you mean an independent study that contradicts the claim that obesity is the primary cause of CHD? In which case I have to wonder what the study should be 'independent' of? Or are all such studies funded by McDonalds?

As for advertising, I posted a link to UK legislation that bans fast food advertising aimed at children. I did not express an opinion either way.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by tifosi


No, its because if they tried to stop them they'd be sued out of existence.

You've got to stop believing everything you see in Boston Legal is real. Some of it is not.

However, all the FIA had to do is only accept teams to be part of F1 if they agreed not to take tobacco connected sponsorship. And also not to allow any form of tobacco connected branding to be connected to any F1 team. That would simply stop the situation dead.

The same applies to the EU rules. As a side issue, the last time I checked, the EU had deeper pockets than Ferrari.

The corruption accusation I have, is due to the predominance of tobacco sponsored F1 teams has now gone - but one remains. The FIA acted to stop tobacco being involved in F1. They failed, which is to evidence of corruption.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And I guess the FIM is corrupt too since Ducati are sponsored by Marlboro? The common denominator is not corruption but the legal loopholes of each team.

[Italiano Tifoso]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
You've got to stop believing everything you see in Boston Legal is real. Some of it is not.

However, all the FIA had to do is only accept teams to be part of F1 if they agreed not to take tobacco connected sponsorship. And also not to allow any form of tobacco connected branding to be connected to any F1 team. That would simply stop the situation dead.

The same applies to the EU rules. As a side issue, the last time I checked, the EU had deeper pockets than Ferrari.

The corruption accusation I have, is due to the predominance of tobacco sponsored F1 teams has now gone - but one remains. The FIA acted to stop tobacco being involved in F1. They failed, which is to evidence of corruption.

"Connected", that is a hard thing to avoid given the fact that so many corporations now own parts of many others. Phillip Morris is one of the largest corporations in the world. Using your rationale this would limit many companies from sponsoring F1 because they are in some way "connected" to a tobacco company.

Heres a local example for you; next time you open a jar of Vegemite just think how much money you are giving Phillip Morris...

Vegemite is a product of Kraft which is owned wholly by Phillip Morris... Every time you spread that good old Vitamin B on your toast you are contributing to the coffers of Phillip Morris aka Altria; and some of those dollars go straight to Ferrari.

The FIA cannot impose tougher laws than the EU itself, as far as Ferrari is concerned, their relationship with Phillip Morris is 100% above board as they adhere to EU and international laws on tobacco sponsorship. Just because Phillip Morris wishes to continue to sponsor Ferrari with next to nil brand exposure, that is their problem and Ferrari's gain.

All we are seeing is a gradual sanitisation of the sport like many others; how many more years do you think it will be before alcohol advertising is also banned from F1? Then Johnny Walker will have to keep walking, literally.

The FIA acted to bring F1 into line with the tobacco sponsorship laws of the countries in which F1 competes. This they have done to the letter of the law. For as long as Governments continue to tax cigarettes, they will not be able to take the moral high ground and pressure companies like Ferrari who receive sponsorship dollars from Phillip Morris. At least Ferrari gives something back to Phillip Morris, the Government simply taxes.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Italiano Tifoso
The FIA acted to bring F1 into line with the tobacco sponsorship laws of the countries in which F1 competes. This they have done to the letter of the law.

Which is ample evidence of the FIA's corrupt or perhaps incompetent behavior.

The blatant branding on the Ducati and the Ferrari is not even acted upon by the FIA. Originally, when the early new arrangement with Ferrari was made, there was going to be no branding on the car. But now there is - and nothing has been done about it.

This only effects two organizations in FIA competitions I think - Ferrari and Ducati. All the rest, which were once hugely sponsored by tobacco, have dropped such sponsorship. All credit to them.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Italiano Tifoso

Heres a local example for you; next time you open a jar of Vegemite just think how much money you are giving Phillip Morris...

If PM dropped tobacco, the world would be a better place. Incidentally the colours for Vegemite are Yellow and Black. Originally it was a waste product from beer manufacture, to which salt was added. Our household consumes Promite, which tastes better. It's owned by Master Foods, which is a privately owned company, and which is not involved in death sticks.

[Josta]

Quote

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


I don't know where you got the conclusions you come to here.

I am not saying that "63% of the biggest killer in the western world is attributable to people eating fast food, yet you think it is ok for them to advertise to children."

Did you follow the links provided?

The NHS study claims that 20% of CHD deaths in men can be attributed to smoking and 17% of CHD deaths in women can be attributed to smoking. This is not the same as saying that 20% and 17% respectively were smokers. Nor do I or the NHS claim that the remainder can be attributed to fast food. The NHS study lists 8 risk factors, smoking is at the top, obesity is listed seventh.

I am not a medical researcher and have no specialist knowledge in the field, but I do believe that to suggest that an NHS study will blame smoking simply because 'it is easy' is unjustifiable.



You appear to be asking for an independent study that contradicts your claim that they don't need to prove anything.
Perhaps you mean an independent study that contradicts the claim that obesity is the primary cause of CHD? In which case I have to wonder what the study should be 'independent' of? Or are all such studies funded by McDonalds?

As for advertising, I posted a link to UK legislation that bans fast food advertising aimed at children. I did not express an opinion either way.

I do have some experience with CHD given that my now deceased father in law suffered from it for so many years. The cause of CHD is Atherosclerosis. This involves arteries being clogged with fat.

Now, what is proven to clog arteries with fat is........ err fat.

Now, what is hypothesised to clog arteries with fat is.......that's right, that thing that is not proven but is easy to blame......smoke.

Now, despite not being a medical expert, what would be your gut instinct? Would fat or smoke be more responsible for clogging arteries with fat?

I know for a fact, given the conversations with many consultants, that smoking is automatically considered as a reason for any disease, despite their being no proof. Until their is proof that smoking has no influence, it is cited as a cause.

The primary cause for Atherosclerosis, which is THE cause of CHD is eating too much fat. You don't need to be obese for this to happen. You can have a fine body to weight ratio, not smoke, exercise reguarly and still consume too much fat resulting in Atherosclerosis.

As for a ban in advertising aimed at children, http://www.guardian..../30/advertising

[Slartibartfast]

Quote

Originally posted by Josta


I do have some experience with CHD given that my now deceased father in law suffered from it for so many years. The cause of CHD is Atherosclerosis. This involves arteries being clogged with fat.

Now, what is proven to clog arteries with fat is........ err fat.

Now, what is hypothesised to clog arteries with fat is.......that's right, that thing that is not proven but is easy to blame......smoke.

Now, despite not being a medical expert, what would be your gut instinct? Would fat or smoke be more responsible for clogging arteries with fat?

I know for a fact, given the conversations with many consultants, that smoking is automatically considered as a reason for any disease, despite their being no proof. Until their is proof that smoking has no influence, it is cited as a cause.

The primary cause for Atherosclerosis, which is THE cause of CHD is eating too much fat. You don't need to be obese for this to happen. You can have a fine body to weight ratio, not smoke, exercise reguarly and still consume too much fat resulting in Atherosclerosis.

As for a ban in advertising aimed at children, http://www.guardian..../30/advertising

Did you follow your own link?

That was an advert featuring children, not the same thing as aimed at. It appeared to me that the advert was aimed at parents, the voice over is about the source of the ingredients.
If you believe that McDonalds, or any other advertiser, is breaking the law, don't tell Atlas, tell the A.S.A.

My problem, by the way, is not with smoking or diet or which is worse. It with your misrepresenting my posts and attributing opinions to me that I have not stated and do not hold.

[Melbourne Park]

This thread - like other anti tobacco threads - is trying to be railroaded away from the tobacco issue, and also the FIA's failure to carry out its published goals of banning tobacco advertising in motorsport.

Its typical tobacco side tracking to point the finger at other issues - because doing so hides what the tobacco industry is doing. When people try that tactic, I recall the photograph of the 7 heads of the tobacco companies, as they sat before the Congressional Committee in the USA, and swore with their hands on their hearts that their company research showed no negative side effects from tobacco, and that their research showed that smoking their nicotine based products was not addictive.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I absolutely believe that their own research did support that. How seriously their research should be taken is a different question.