Cargando…
Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations?
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that tobacco companies would not follow a regulation that required seven new graphic health warnings (GHWs) to be evenly distributed on cigarette packs and that they would distribute fewer packs featuring warnings regarded by smokers as being more disturbing. METHOD...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743633/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19706188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1617-9625-5-14 |
_version_ | 1782171864421892096 |
---|---|
author | Wilson, Nick Peace, Jo Li, Judy Edwards, Richard Hoek, Janet Stanley, James Thomson, George |
author_facet | Wilson, Nick Peace, Jo Li, Judy Edwards, Richard Hoek, Janet Stanley, James Thomson, George |
author_sort | Wilson, Nick |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that tobacco companies would not follow a regulation that required seven new graphic health warnings (GHWs) to be evenly distributed on cigarette packs and that they would distribute fewer packs featuring warnings regarded by smokers as being more disturbing. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of purchased packs (n = 168) and street-collected discarded packs (convenience sample of New Zealand cities and towns, n = 1208 packs) with statistical analysis of seven types of new GHWs. A priori warning impact was judged using three criteria, which were tested against data from depth interviews with retailers. RESULTS: The GHWs on the purchased packs and street-collected packs both showed a distribution pattern that was generally consistent with the hypothesis ie, there were disproportionately more packs featuring images judged as "least disturbing" and disproportionately fewer of those with warnings judged "more disturbing". The overall patterns were statistically significant, suggesting an unequal frequency of the different warnings for both purchased (p < 0.0001) and street-collected packs (p = 0.035). One of the least disturbing images (of a "corpse with toe-tag") dominated the distribution in both samples. Further analysis of the street-collected packs revealed that this image appeared disproportionately more frequently on manufactured cigarettes made by each of the three largest New Zealand tobacco companies. Although stock clustering could explain the purchase pack result, there were no obvious reasons why the same uneven warning distribution was also evident among the street-collected packs. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that tobacco companies are not following the regulations, which requires even distribution of the seven different GHWs on cigarette packs; further monitoring is required to estimate the extent of this non-compliance. As an immediate measure, governments should strictly enforce all regulations applying to health warnings, particularly given that these are an effective tobacco control intervention that cost tax payers nothing. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2743633 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-27436332009-09-15 Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations? Wilson, Nick Peace, Jo Li, Judy Edwards, Richard Hoek, Janet Stanley, James Thomson, George Tob Induc Dis Short Report OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that tobacco companies would not follow a regulation that required seven new graphic health warnings (GHWs) to be evenly distributed on cigarette packs and that they would distribute fewer packs featuring warnings regarded by smokers as being more disturbing. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of purchased packs (n = 168) and street-collected discarded packs (convenience sample of New Zealand cities and towns, n = 1208 packs) with statistical analysis of seven types of new GHWs. A priori warning impact was judged using three criteria, which were tested against data from depth interviews with retailers. RESULTS: The GHWs on the purchased packs and street-collected packs both showed a distribution pattern that was generally consistent with the hypothesis ie, there were disproportionately more packs featuring images judged as "least disturbing" and disproportionately fewer of those with warnings judged "more disturbing". The overall patterns were statistically significant, suggesting an unequal frequency of the different warnings for both purchased (p < 0.0001) and street-collected packs (p = 0.035). One of the least disturbing images (of a "corpse with toe-tag") dominated the distribution in both samples. Further analysis of the street-collected packs revealed that this image appeared disproportionately more frequently on manufactured cigarettes made by each of the three largest New Zealand tobacco companies. Although stock clustering could explain the purchase pack result, there were no obvious reasons why the same uneven warning distribution was also evident among the street-collected packs. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that tobacco companies are not following the regulations, which requires even distribution of the seven different GHWs on cigarette packs; further monitoring is required to estimate the extent of this non-compliance. As an immediate measure, governments should strictly enforce all regulations applying to health warnings, particularly given that these are an effective tobacco control intervention that cost tax payers nothing. BioMed Central 2009-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC2743633/ /pubmed/19706188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1617-9625-5-14 Text en Copyright © 2009 Wilson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Short Report Wilson, Nick Peace, Jo Li, Judy Edwards, Richard Hoek, Janet Stanley, James Thomson, George Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations? |
title | Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations? |
title_full | Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations? |
title_fullStr | Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations? |
title_full_unstemmed | Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations? |
title_short | Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations? |
title_sort | distribution of new graphic warning labels: are tobacco companies following regulations? |
topic | Short Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743633/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19706188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1617-9625-5-14 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wilsonnick distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT peacejo distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT lijudy distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT edwardsrichard distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT hoekjanet distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT stanleyjames distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT thomsongeorge distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations |