scholarly journals Implementation of effective cigarette health warning labels among low and middle income countries: State capacity, path-dependency and tobacco industry activity

2015 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 241-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heikki Hiilamo ◽  
Stanton A. Glantz
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 2203-2212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dharma N Bhatta ◽  
Eric Crosbie ◽  
Stella A Bialous ◽  
Stanton Glantz

Abstract Introduction Nepal passed a comprehensive tobacco control law in 2011. Tobacco control advocates successfully countered tobacco industry (TI) interference to force implementation of law. Aims and Methods Policy documents, news stories, and key informant interviews were triangulated and interpreted using the Policy Dystopia Model (PDM). Results The TI tried to block and weaken the law after Parliament passed it. Tobacco control advocates used litigation to force implementation of the law while the TI used litigation in an effort to block implementation. The TI argued that tobacco was socially and economically important, and used front groups to weaken the law. Tobacco control advocates mobilized the media, launched public awareness campaigns, educated the legislature, utilized lawsuits, and monitored TI activities to successfully counter TI opposition. Conclusions Both tobacco control advocates and the industry used the discursive and instrumental strategies described in the PDM. The model was helpful for understanding TI activities in Nepal and could be applied to other low- and middle-income countries. Civil society, with the help of international health groups, should continue to track TI interference and learn the lessons from other countries to proactively to counter it. Implications The PDM provides an effective framework to understand battles over implementation of a strong tobacco control law in Nepal, a low- and middle-income country. The TI applied discursive and instrumental strategies in Nepal in its efforts to weaken and delay the implementation of the law at every stage of implementation. It is important to continuously monitor TI activities and learn lessons from other countries, as the industry often employ the same strategies globally. Tobacco control advocates utilized domestic litigation, media advocacy, and engaged with legislators, politicians, and other stakeholders to implement a strong tobacco control law. Other low- and middle-income countries can adapt these lessons from Nepal to achieve effective implementation of their laws.


Author(s):  
Olufemi Erinoso ◽  
Kevin Welding ◽  
Katherine Clegg Smith ◽  
Joanna E Cohen

Abstract Introduction Cigarettes designed to have less smoke smell were developed by the tobacco industry to supposedly reduce negative qualities. Cigarettes with marketing claims communicating these designs have been sold in high-income countries and marketing of “less smoke smell” terms on cigarette packaging can promote cigarette use. It is unclear to what extent they have been marketed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods The Tobacco Pack Surveillance System (TPackSS) systemically collected tobacco packs available in 14 LMICs with high tobacco use between 2013-2017. We coded 4,354 packs for marketing appeals, including claims related to smoke smell. We describe “less smoke smell” and similar claims found on these packs and compare across country and tobacco manufacturers. Results Phrases communicating less smoke smell were present on packs purchased in nine of 14 LMICs, including Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, Ukraine, and Vietnam. The most commonly (74.1%) used terminology was “less smoke smell”, "LSS" or a combination of the two. Packs from Russia had the most prevalent use (11.8%) of such claims. Companies using these terms across 21 brands included Japan Tobacco International (JTI), British American Tobacco (BAT), Philip Morris International (PMI) and other smaller companies. JTI accounted for 70.9% of packs with such terms. Conclusion Some of the world’s largest tobacco companies are communicating less smoke smell on packs in LMICs. Less smoke smell and similar phrases on packaging should be prohibited because they can enhance the appeal of cigarettes. Implications Tobacco companies are using “less smoke smell” and similar phrases on cigarette packs in LMICs. These claims have the potential to increase the appeal of smoking and promote cigarette use. Countries should consider policies to restrict attractive labeling claims, in accordance with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 13 guidelines, which recommends restrictions on attractive design elements on tobacco packaging.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-86
Author(s):  
Olufemi Erinoso ◽  
Kevin Welding ◽  
Joanna E. Cohen ◽  
Katherine Smith

Objectives: The tobacco industry can attract consumers using appealing packaging, including pack structure. We assessed the variety of pack structure elements across select low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: Between 2013 and 2017, we systematically collected 3542 packs from 14 LMICs. The selected countries represented LMICs with the greatest number of smokers. We assessed packs for 4 packaging structure elements: pack-type (hard, soft, or box), pack-shape, pack-edge, and opening-style. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the packag- ing structure elements by country and tobacco company. Results: All 14 countries assessed had predominantly hard packs (88.3% of the total sample). We identified 5 pack-shape variants; the most common pack-shape in all countries was the rectangular non-slim pack-shape (79.2%). Straight right-angled edge packs were the most common in 11 of the 14 countries assessed, but rounded edge packs were the most common in Turkey (58.5%). We found 9 broad categories of pack-opening styles, with the most common being the flip-top (94.5%). Conclusion: Although we found common packaging structure elements across the 14 LMICs, we also noted diverse packaging structures. Restrictions on pack structure elements are important as these elements can contribute to the attractiveness of tobacco products.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joop de Jong ◽  
Mark Jordans ◽  
Ivan Komproe ◽  
Robert Macy ◽  
Aline & Herman Ndayisaba ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document