Cargando…

Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: DeAtley, Teresa, Bianco, Eduardo, Welding, Kevin, Cohen, Joanna E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Tobacco Control 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5870447/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28416710
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053402
_version_ 1783309483784536064
author DeAtley, Teresa
Bianco, Eduardo
Welding, Kevin
Cohen, Joanna E
author_facet DeAtley, Teresa
Bianco, Eduardo
Welding, Kevin
Cohen, Joanna E
author_sort DeAtley, Teresa
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family. METHODS: An existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a ‘starting hub’ was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types. RESULTS: Unique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62%) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin). CONCLUSION: Overall, compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5870447
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Tobacco Control
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58704472018-03-28 Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement DeAtley, Teresa Bianco, Eduardo Welding, Kevin Cohen, Joanna E Tob Control Brief Report INTRODUCTION: Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family. METHODS: An existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a ‘starting hub’ was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types. RESULTS: Unique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62%) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin). CONCLUSION: Overall, compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type. Tobacco Control 2018-03 2017-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5870447/ /pubmed/28416710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053402 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Brief Report
DeAtley, Teresa
Bianco, Eduardo
Welding, Kevin
Cohen, Joanna E
Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement
title Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement
title_full Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement
title_fullStr Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement
title_full_unstemmed Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement
title_short Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement
title_sort compliance with uruguay’s single presentation requirement
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5870447/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28416710
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053402
work_keys_str_mv AT deatleyteresa compliancewithuruguayssinglepresentationrequirement
AT biancoeduardo compliancewithuruguayssinglepresentationrequirement
AT weldingkevin compliancewithuruguayssinglepresentationrequirement
AT cohenjoannae compliancewithuruguayssinglepresentationrequirement