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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
European Publishing
2009-08-01
|
| Series: | Tobacco Induced Diseases |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.journalssystem.com/tid/Distribution-of-new-graphic-warning-labels-Are-tobacco-companies-following-regulations-,65960,0,2.html |
| _version_ | 1818354144499466240 |
|---|---|
| author | Nick Wilson Jo Peace Judy Li Richard Edwards Janet Hoek James Stanley George Thomson |
| author_facet | Nick Wilson Jo Peace Judy Li Richard Edwards Janet Hoek James Stanley George Thomson |
| author_sort | Nick Wilson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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.
Conclusions
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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T19:20:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1e62eb385bc14ff28337bc7f7f851482 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1617-9625 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T19:20:45Z |
| publishDate | 2009-08-01 |
| publisher | European Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Tobacco Induced Diseases |
| spelling | doaj.art-1e62eb385bc14ff28337bc7f7f8514822022-12-21T23:34:09ZengEuropean PublishingTobacco Induced Diseases1617-96252009-08-015August10.1186/1617-9625-5-1465960Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations?Nick Wilson0Jo Peace1Judy Li2Richard Edwards3Janet Hoek4James Stanley5George Thomson6Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New ZealandDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New ZealandDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New ZealandDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New ZealandDepartment of Marketing, University of Otago, DunedinDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New ZealandDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New ZealandObjective 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. Conclusions 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.http://www.journalssystem.com/tid/Distribution-of-new-graphic-warning-labels-Are-tobacco-companies-following-regulations-,65960,0,2.htmltobacco industrytobacco companyhealth warningcigarette packgraphic warning |
| spellingShingle | Nick Wilson Jo Peace Judy Li Richard Edwards Janet Hoek James Stanley George Thomson Distribution of new graphic warning labels: Are tobacco companies following regulations? Tobacco Induced Diseases tobacco industry tobacco company health warning cigarette pack graphic warning |
| 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 | tobacco industry tobacco company health warning cigarette pack graphic warning |
| url | http://www.journalssystem.com/tid/Distribution-of-new-graphic-warning-labels-Are-tobacco-companies-following-regulations-,65960,0,2.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nickwilson distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT jopeace distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT judyli distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT richardedwards distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT janethoek distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT jamesstanley distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations AT georgethomson distributionofnewgraphicwarninglabelsaretobaccocompaniesfollowingregulations |