RESEARCH AND POLICY ISSUES IN RINGOLD AND CALFEES TREATMENT OF CIGARETTE HEALTH CLAIMS

Volume 8 of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing contained a content analysis of cigarette advertising from 1926-1986 [Ringold and Calfee 1989], together with critiques of both the analysis and its implications [Cohen 1989; Pollay 1989]. In a subsequent paper, Ringold and Calfee [1990] (1) argued that "the evidence supports our exclusion of mildness and most filter claims from the health claims category," (2) defended their exclusive focus on coding of explicit advertising content (i.e., rather than the likely meaning/interpretation of such claims), and (3) presented a lengthy and speculative analysis to the effect that regulation of tar, nicotine, and related health claims (particularly by the Federal Trade Commission) was ill-advised. This paper responds to each of these issues.