Date: 1936
Brand: Camel
Manufacturer: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Campaign: For Digestion Sake
Theme: For Your Health
Keywords: Male, Female, Digestion, Nerves, Irritation
Quote: You eat over a thousand meals a year! Food is varied. Place and time often differ. Sometimes you are free of care- at other times, worried and tense. Yet, thanks to camels, you can help digestion meet these changing conditions easily. Smoking Camels speeds up the flow of fluids that start digestion off well and keep it running smoothly. Tension eases. Alkalinity increases. You enjoy your food more- and have a feeling of greater ease and contentment after eating. Mealtime or any time- make it a Camels- for digestions sake, for Camel's invigorating lift, for mildness and fine flavor. Camels do not get on your nerves.


For Digestion Sake

From 1936-1937, and then occasionally in 1938 and in 1939, Camel ran the For your digestion s sake, smoke Camels campaign, which insisted that Camels helped speed digestion by increasing alkalinity perhaps the strangest health claim in all of tobacco advertising history. The digestion advertisements employed an array of techniques, ranging from celebrity and athlete testimonial to youth appeal through a claim to modernity. Claims like They never get on your nerves and They are gentle on your throat implied that other cigarettes produced these negative side effects, but that Camels were different. Camel claimed to have based its digestion facts on studies conducted by Dr. A.L. Winsor of the Graduate School of Education at Cornell University. By 1951, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a cease-and-desist order prohibiting R.J. Reynolds from portraying Camels as aiding digestion in any respect (1). In the same FTC report, the FTC ruled that smoking cannot be considered under any circumstances as beneficial to any of the bodily systems. Considering that the digestion advertisements hadn t run for over a decade, the FTC mandate might be seen as too little too late.

1. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FTC, 192 F.2d 535 7th Cir. 1951

   →  View Larger Image