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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilson, Nick, Peace, Jo, Li, Judy, Edwards, Richard, Hoek, Janet, Stanley, James, Thomson, George
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