Product

Table of contents

3 - Progress in Australia on recommended policies and programs

Product

Consumer product information

Action 5.2

Improve consumer information related to tobacco products, including through the mandating of substantially larger front-of-pack health warnings, more regular reviews of health warnings and a more timely system of warning consumers of new and emerging risks.

New evidence

The International Tobacco Control Study has reported on the basis of its program of research comparing the impact of different sizes and forms of health warnings in different countries over the past five years that both size and placement are important in determining the effectiveness of warnings.[99] Front-of-pack warnings are viewed significantly more often than back-of-pack warnings[100] so that larger front-of-pack warnings have significantly more impact than back-of-pack warnings of a comparable size. The Study has also published data indicating that forgoing cigarettes as a result of noticing warnings and quit-related cognitive reactions to warnings are consistent prospective predictors of making quit attempts.[101]

Research conducted for Health Canada has found that graphic health warnings need to cover almost the entire surface of cigarette packages if they are to become more effective in convincing smokers to quit. The department set out to determine whether increasing the warning size from the current level – 50% of the panel's surface – to 75%, 90% or 100% of cigarette packages would have a greater effect on smokers. The research, conducted by Montreal-based polling firm Createc, found that increasing the size of health warning to cover 75% of cigarette packages would only have a ‘small impact’ and over time would be unlikely to remain more effective than the current coverage of 50%. After interviewing 730 adult smokers, 306 teen smokers and 440 teens who are likely to start smoking, the firm found that warnings need to cover at least 90% of the package for the negative messages about smoking to achieve ‘substantial’ and ‘significant’ effects on most indicators. These indicators include perceived communication impact, personal persuasiveness, smoker image, product image, emotional impact and packaging attractiveness.[102]

Overseas developments

At its third session in November 2008, the Conference of the Parties to the FCTC adopted guidelines for implementation of Article 11[93] of the FCTC covering the packaging and labelling of tobacco products. The guidelines state:

‘12 ... Given the evidence that the effectiveness of health warnings and messages increases with their size, Parties should consider using health warnings and messages that cover more than 50% of the principal display areas and aim to cover as much of the principal display areas as possible.’

The WHO has selected ‘Tobacco Health Warnings’ as the theme for the next World No Tobacco Day, which took place on 31 May 2009.[103]

In February 2009, Mauritius announced new regulations to come into force on 1 June 2009, mandating warnings to occupy 65% of the total front/back surfaces of the pack.[104]

The European Commission is planning a new study aimed at developing better graphic images to warn of the damaging effects of tobacco, in a bid to encourage more EU countries to put the pictures on cigarette packets.[105] The Commission has already asked researchers to submit proposals for the new study, which would include developing a new library of colour photographs, images and text warnings about the negative consequences for health of tobacco consumption.

Developments in Australia

The Department of Health and Ageing’s evaluation of the Australian graphic health warnings introduced in 2006 was released in April 2009. The evaluation indicated that while smokers strongly approved of the graphic form and the tone and style of warnings, unaided recall of health information declined from 98% in 2000 to 91% in 2008.[106] Smokers interviewed confirmed the importance of the front of the pack for conveying health information, with many smokers commenting that the current warnings were too small and made less prominent by placement on the lid. The evaluation also indicated some wear-out of current warnings and evidence that colours and other design features of cigarette packs were competing with and reducing the impact of warnings.

Tobacco products

Action 5.4

Establish or nominate a body with the power to regulate the design, contents and maximum emissions for all tobacco products (and any alternative nicotine delivery devices that may be allowed onto the market), and with responsibility for specifying required disclosure to government, labelling and any other communication to consumers.

A North American panel of experts has released its findings on principles for reducing tobacco-related harm.[107] Its report describes short- and long-term objectives, and outlines a strategic vision and blueprint for research, policy and communications to reduce the harm from tobacco for the United States. Panel members identified several issues requiring further research before policy changes could be recommended. These issues involve questions, such as whether reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to non-addicting levels would likely lead to a reduction in smoking prevalence, and what issues might arise from the long-term use of less harmful nicotine-containing products.
Top of Page

New evidence

A University of California Riverside study has shown that smoke from ‘light’ or ‘low-yield’ harm-reduction cigarettes retains toxicity that can affect prenatal development.[108] ‘Many chemicals found in harm-reduction cigarette smoke have not been tested, and some are listed by manufacturers as safe,’ said Prue Talbot, a professor of cell biology who led the study. ‘But our tests on mice clearly show that these chemicals adversely affect reproduction and associated development processes. The effects are likely to be the same in humans, in which case pregnant women would be particularly vulnerable to the effect of smoke from these cigarettes.’ The researchers found that both mainstream and sidestream smoke from traditional and harm-reduction cigarettes are toxic to pre-implantation embryos and can retard growth or kill embryonic cells at this stage of development. They were surprised that smoke from harm-reduction cigarettes appeared to be more potent than the corresponding smoke from traditional brands of cigarettes.

A study of the smoking of carbon filter cigarettes (Marlboro Ultra Smooth) produced few differences in smoking topography and exposure compared with conventional low and ultralow-yield cigarettes. Results suggest that the manner in which Marlboro Ultra Smooth cigarettes are smoked by humans is unlikely in the short term to reduce exposure among smokers who switch from a conventional brand.[109]

Variation in ISO/FTC tar yields are predicted by a limited set of cigarette design features, especially filter ventilation, suggesting that governments should consider mandatory disclosure of cigarette design parameters as part of comprehensive tobacco product regulations.[110]

Overseas developments

BAT has updated its website to more clearly state that low-tar cigarettes are unlikely to be any less dangerous; Source: www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52ANCZ?opendocument&SKN=1&TMP=1.

United States

In November 2008 the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibited tobacco companies from claiming that cigarette tar and nicotine ratings are based on an FTC-approved testing method or that they are endorsed or approved by the FTC. The FTC found that the widely used method for testing tar and nicotine, often referred to as the FTC Method, Cambridge Filter Method or ISO Method, is flawed and does not provide consumers with useful information and is likely to mislead consumers. The FTC action rescinds a guidance issued in 1966 that permitted statements concerning tar and nicotine yields based on the FTC Method. Today’s FTC puts the tobacco companies on notice that they risk legal action by the FTC if they use the current tar and nicotine ratings in a way that the FTC finds false or misleading. Source: www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/11/cigarettetesting.shtm.

On 1 April 2009 the US House of Representatives approved The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act by a 298–112 margin, a bill that would give the US government unprecedented powers over the tobacco industry, including new curbs on marketing tactics and cigarette ingredients. The bill was passed by the US Senate on 11 June 2009, and is set to go back to the House of Representatives for approval and signing into law by President Obama.[111] Backed by health groups such as the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association, apart from controls on advertising and promotion, the bill requires tobacco companies to disclose to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the ingredients in their products, and allows the agency to require changes to protect public health, though not to reduce nicotine content to zero or ban any particular class of tobacco products. Sources: AFP, 2 April 2009, http://tinyurl.com/cbhnv3; Historic anti-smoking vote to give FDA new power, Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06....

While there is strong support for the legislation, there are also some who remain concerned about the potential downsides, including the unintended consequences, of harm reduction approaches to tobacco control. Some individuals and groups continue to oppose the bill on the grounds that it gives undue influence to tobacco companies, for instance through membership of the Scientific Advisory Committee, and through provisions requiring the FDA to minimise the financial impact of regulations on companies.

Canada

The New Democratic Party has tabled a private member’s bill aiming to amend the Canadian Tobacco Act to ban flavours and additives that appeal to children.[112]
Top of Page

Developments in Australia

Late last year, the Federal Department of Health and Ageing engaged the Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute to assess the public health value of disclosing cigarette ingredients and emissions data, as proposed by some health groups. The group found the one-off agreement negotiated by former Health Minister Dr Michael Wooldridge was unlikely to have directly promoted or protected the health of Australians. ‘In research with smokers, non-smokers, and tobacco control stakeholders, the currently disclosed emissions and ingredient information was seen to be incomprehensible, uninteresting, incomplete and difficult to access’, the January 2009 report states. ‘Most members of the public had not and did not intend to access the information (and) providing members of the public with the disclosed information did not seem to discourage them from smoking.’[113]

Non-combustible tobacco products

New evidence

Although associated with lower overall mortality, including a greatly reduced risk of cancer, results of a new study suggest that the use of oral moist snuff, a type of smokeless tobacco widely used in Sweden that is also known as ‘snus’, may increase the risk of fatal stroke.[114]

Ruyan America, Inc., released a report on 29 October 2008 on the results of testing of the safety of its electronic smoking alternatives, specifically the nicotine cartridges that produce the smoke-like vapour that users find satisfies their desire for tobacco. The report summary states that the test results ‘confirm that the Ruyan(R) E-cigarette is a safe alternative to smoking, very safe relative to cigarettes and safe in absolute terms on all measurements that were applied’. The summary also notes that the report findings refer only and specifically to Ruyan products. The tests were conducted by Dr Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Ltd, who also authored the report, and they were performed by seven leading government, university and commercial laboratories in New Zealand and Canada. Ruyan funded the tests and the report, but had no role in the design of the tests or any input with respect to the findings in the report. No completed tests were withheld from the report, which can be viewed in its entirety at http://healthnz.co.nz/.... Source: MarketWatch, 29 October 2008.

A study in Tobacco Control[115] has found that non-combustible products are much less effective than combustible products in suppressing abstinence symptoms.
Tobacco control advocates continue to debate the significance of comparative figures on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in the United States. Only very small numbers of American smokers report shifting to smokeless tobacco products, with greater numbers reporting swapping from smokeless to cigarettes than cigarettes to smokeless.[116] Supporters of the deregulation of smokeless tobacco argue that these figures demonstrate only that people are unaware of the lower risks associated with smokeless tobacco.[117]

Overseas developments

A Florida company that imports and distributes so-called electronic cigarettes has filed suit against the Food and Drug Administration, claiming the agency is illegally blocking imports of its product into the United States. The suit,[118] filed by Smoking Everywhere in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the FDA has overstepped its regulatory authority by banning shipments of the devices and insisting they need to go through the drug approval process. The company has also recently announced their creation of ‘vitamin-enhanced’ e-cigarette cartridges, including flavours such as grape, pomegranate, bubble-gum, chocolate-chip cookie, fruit punch, etc. Source: www.free-press-release.com/news/200904/1240607546.htm.... By contrast, the new Electronic Cigarette Association (www.ecassoc.org) and Ruyan (http://ruyanamerica.com), which is not a member of the ECA, have both opposed the marketing of flavoured e-cigarettes. They are also reported to support bans on the marketing of e-cigarettes to youth, and support reasonable manufacturing and marketing regulations for e-cigarette products.

Health Canada has undertaken a review of e-cigarettes, with the outcome pending. The concern, experts say, is that the exact amount of nicotine released by e-cigarettes is unknown, whereas nicotine levels in approved smoking-cessation aids are clearly indicated and proven to be effective at helping smokers kick the habit.

As mentioned above, the US Congress has recently passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Bill, which gives the FDA explicit power to regulate cigarettes and the right to oversee e-cigarettes as well. Source: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/fda-sued-over-electronic-cigarette-embargo-.html.

Reduced ignition propensity cigarettes

New Federal legislation[119] will require all cigarettes imported and manufactured in Australia to comply with stricter fire safety standards from March 2010. The reduced fire risk (RFR) cigarettes will be designed to self-extinguish before burning to their full length at least 75% of the time, lowering the likelihood of fires caused by discarded butts. Canada and 36 US states have already passed fire-safe cigarette laws, while the EU aims to pass similar legislation by 2011. New York reported a 30% decrease in cigarette-caused fire deaths in the year following the introduction of RFR cigarettes. Source: Epoch Times.

Regulations passed in April 2009[120] will bring forward the deadline by which no non-compliant stock may be sold from March 2011 to September 2010.

The Victorian Government has banned the sale and advertising of battery-powered cigarettes (7 syndicated radio). Source: Victoria bans battery powered cigarettes, The Age, 5 January 2009.

Queensland researchers Hall and Gartner have called for liberalisation of the sale of smokeless tobacco products in Australia.[121]

Producers

Action 5.5

Investigate the feasibility of legal action by governments and others against tobacco companies.
Top of Page

Overseas developments

The Alberta Government in Canada has introduced legislation that will allow it to join other provinces in suing tobacco companies to recover billions of dollars in smoking-related health costs and for alleged misrepresentation of their products. The legislation would permit the government to retrieve costs resulting from ‘wrongful acts or omissions’ by tobacco manufacturers, and could see the province try to snare some of the roughly C$500 million in annual health costs associated with tobacco use. Liepert noted that the government hasn't made a final decision on whether it will proceed with a lawsuit and will review its options in the coming months, including whether to join other provinces in one larger case. Alberta is now the eighth province to have laid the groundwork for lawsuits against Big Tobacco. British Columbia and New Brunswick passed legislation and initiated lawsuits to recover healthcare costs, while Ontario, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have also introduced or passed health cost recovery legislation. Source: Calgary Herald, 12 May 2009, http://tinyurl.com/ozfxf8

A US appeals court has largely upheld a landmark ruling that cigarette makers lied about the health risks of smoking. Washington's Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by tobacco firms against a 2006 decision that banned labels such as "low tar" and "light". Companies including Philip Morris USA were found guilty of racketeering and fraud over the issue. Judges upheld the previous ruling, but excluded one firm and two trade groups from their judgement. They ruled that the trade bodies—Council for Tobacco Research-USA and Tobacco Institute—had not made or sold products, so could be excluded. And the firm Liggett was excused because it had co-operated with the authorities and acknowledged health risks. But the judges rejected an argument from the other tobacco firms that they had never claimed that "light" cigarettes were less harmful. The companies are now likely to take their appeal before the US Supreme Court, although commentators say that their chances of success are slim. Source: BBC News, 22 May 2009 Link: http://tinyurl.com/poqxlo

¹Although one of these studies failed to find a relationship between workplace bans and heart attacks.
²Canada (12 of 13 provinces/territories) 1. Saskatchewan (11 March 2002); 2. Manitoba (1 January 2004)*; 3. Nunavut (1 February 2004); 4. Prince Edward Island (1 June 2006); 5. Northwest Territories (21 January 2007); 6. Nova Scotia (31 March 2007); 7. British Columbia (31 March 2008); 8. Ontario (31 May 2008); 9. Quebec (31 May 2008); 10. Alberta (1 July 2008); 11. New Brunswick (1 January 2009); 12. Yukon Territory (15 May 2009)

|TOC|next page