Search

Technical Paper 2:
Tobacco Control in Australia: making smoking history

3.1.5 Product information for consumers

|TOC|next page

Policy intention: to mandate adequate and effective consumer information on tobacco products and at point of sale

Health warnings

Progress against international comparators

In 2006, after many years of negotiation, testing[196, 197] and assessment,[197] the six black text warnings on white background covering 25% of the front and 33% of the back of cigarette packets that had been required in Australia since 1994[198] were replaced with 14 graphic warnings covering 30% of the front and 90% of the back of the pack.[198-200] Long delays were observed in cigarettes with new warnings actually being available in shops.[201] In November 2007 the Department of Health and Ageing commissioned Elliot and Shanahan Research to conduct an evaluation of current warnings, due for completion in October 2008.

Belgium (2006), Brazil (2002, improved in 2004 and again in 2008), Canada (2001), Chile (2006), India (2007), Jordan (2006), New Zealand (2008), Singapore (2004, and again in 2006), Thailand (2005, and again in 2007), Uruguay (2006) and Venezuela (2005) have now all finalised laws requiring picture-based warnings.

Countries in the 27-member European Union (EU) have the option of requiring picture-based warnings, choosing from among 42 picture messages prepared by the European Commission. The UK will require graphic warnings from October 2008.²³ The governments of the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Iran, Ireland, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Portugal, Romania and South Africa have all stated that picture-based warnings are now under consideration.[202]

Most countries requiring graphic warnings specify that these take up around half the pack (50% in Canada, Singapore, Thailand, Uruguay, India and Chile; 48% in Belgium and Switzerland including borders; 45% including borders in Finland; and 43% in uni-lingual EU countries, Norway and Iceland). Three countries – Brazil, Panama and Venezuela – require a health warning covering 100% of one face of the pack.

Australia is now well behind when it comes to the potency of warnings.

Figure 18: Examples of health warnings required on cigarettes in Singapore (neck cancer) and in Thailiand (throat cancer)

Top of Page

Additional evidence since 2004

A study of Australian teenagers indicated that new graphic health warnings introduced in 2005 resulted in increased cognitive processing of package information, and a greater likelihood of experimental and established smokers thinking about quitting.[203]

If it is accepted that cigarette packages should display product information for consumers, it follows that such information should communicate with consumers as effectively as possible.

Research recently undertaken for the Canadian Government found that health warnings occupying 75% of the pack were more effective than warnings occupying 50% of the pack in conveying information about the health risks of smoking.[204] Based on the analysis of 38 different indicators, researchers concluded, however, that warnings needed to increase to 90% in order to ‘connect with emotions of various styles of young smokers’ and ‘make cigarette packs less attractive’.

New evidence about the health effects of smoking emerges literally every day, yet warnings on cigarette packs in Australia have been reviewed only three times in the past 20 years.[205, 206] Monitoring over four years of the ITC 4 nations study shows clearly that the effects of the warnings decay, suggesting the need for frequent rotation and the regular introduction of new warnings.
All these factors suggest the need for a system by which consumers of tobacco products can much more rapidly be warned of new and emerging risks.


Action proposed
Amend Schedule 2 to the Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Tobacco) Regulations 2004,[198] to prescribe that health warnings must cover at least 90% of the front and 100% of the back of the pack.

Put in place a new system for providing consumer product information to smokers, which ensures that package health warnings are reviewed much more regularly and amended where necessary to maintain their effectiveness.

Complement pack warnings with more frequent and rapid warnings through bulletins from a designated authority (such as the Chief Medical Officer) to news media and at point of sale.

Ingredients disclosure

Progress against international comparators

Since 1999 the three tobacco companies currently manufacturing cigarettes in Australia – Philip Morris Limited (PML), British American Tobacco Australia Limited (BATA) and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited (ITA) – have provided ingredient data to the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under a Voluntary Agreement for the Disclosure of the Ingredients of Cigarettes.[207] The manufacturers provide annual reports, which are posted unmodified on the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing’s website.[208] As per the agreement, the manufacturers provide: composite lists of tobacco ingredients (including flavourings), with the functions of each ingredient (filler, flavour, humectant, preservative, binder etc) also listed; and composite lists of non-tobacco ingredients in alphabetical order, with each product’s ingredients listed separately, processing aids and preservatives combined under each heading, and by-brand variant lists of ingredients listed in descending order by weight.

In May 2007 Ministers agreed that a feasibility study on ingredient disclosure would be commissioned to investigate the legal issues, appropriate powers, costs, suitable locations, timelines, potential risks and other ramifications of formalising these arrangements in law. The study, currently in progress, sets out to identify the information needs of consumers, scientists and policy makers.

Meanwhile, the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is also developing detailed guidelines about the disclosure of ingredients and emissions.[209] See I 6. below for further details and action proposed.
Top of Page
Display of tar, CO & nicotine yields
The current method for measuring the yields of carbon monoxide and ‘tar’ from cigarettes using cigarette machines set to standard-puff protocols has now been widely discredited.[210] Such testing does not accurately reflect delivery to humans, and the smoking of low-tar cigarettes in the US has not been associated with a reduction in health risks.[211] By placing ventilation holes in the filters, air is mixed with the smoke, and companies have been able to quote low machine-tested levels of tar delivery.[212, 213] However, humans do not smoke like machines. Smokers soon learn to cover the holes in order to get a full dose of nicotine,[214] and it seems that they get a full dose of tar in the process.[215]

Progress against international comparators

The Australian Government has ended the legal requirement to display yield information on packs; however, the current legislation does not prohibit it.²⁴ The only constraints on manufacturers displaying yield information and descriptors such as ‘light’ and ‘mild’ arise under the undertakings accepted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in 2005 from Philip Morris, British American Tobacco Australia Limited and Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd. While the undertakings given by each manufacturer differed slightly, each agreed to cease displaying descriptors and yield information on packs. Tobacco companies that are not subject to these undertakings face no restrictions. Light and mild descriptors were banned throughout the EU from September 2003, and the US Federal Trade Commission is currently reviewing regulations pertaining to descriptors and labelling.[216]

Additional evidence since 2004

The ITC 4 nations study found that by 2006, inaccurate beliefs about the health benefits of light cigarettes were just as common among smokers in the UK as they had been before the EU ban took effect.[217] The researchers conclude that efforts to correct decades of consumer misperceptions about light cigarettes must extend beyond simply removing ‘light and mild’ brand descriptors.

Action proposed
Prohibit the commercial supply of tobacco products in packs displaying misleading descriptors such as ‘light’ and ‘mild’ and similar terms, or any numbers associated with the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide content of smoke from the cigarettes inside the pack, or any pack that uses colours, brand names, milder taste or any other device to suggest lower yields.

²³See The Tobacco Products (Manufacture, Presentation and Sale) (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20072473_en_1.
²⁴See Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Tobacco) Regulations 2004 (Cth).

|TOC|next page