Cigarette Warnings: Is Bigger Better?
American cigarette warning labels might be more effective if they were big and graphic — like those in some other countries, according to a new study.
The news appears in the March issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
In the study, researchers surveyed nearly 15,000 adult smokers in the United States, U.K., Canada, and Australia to test the effectiveness of the warning labels used in those four countries. The surveys were conducted between 2002 and 2005. The key finding: The U.S. labels, which were the smallest and least detailed, were also the least effective.
"The current findings, along with previous research, suggest that U.S. smokers might benefit from large graphic warnings on cigarette packages," write the researchers, who include David Hammond, Ph.D., of Canada's University of Waterloo.
U.S. cigarette labels include four warnings written on the side of cigarette packages.
Canadian, Australian, and British cigarette warning labels are much bigger, include more health warnings, and appear on the front and back of the packages.
The Canadian label covers half of the front and back of cigarette packages. It includes 16 warnings in print as well as pictures, such as a graphic suggestive of impotence and the words "Tobacco use can make you impotent."
The Australian label includes six written warnings but no pictures. It covers a quarter of the front and a third of the back of cigarette packages.
The U.K. revised its cigarette warning label in late 2002, adding 10 written warnings (such as "Smoking when pregnant harms your baby") for a total of 16 written warnings on the front and back of the package. The warning text was also enlarged at that time.
Some other countries get even more graphic with their warning labels, according to the report. For instance, a Thai label includes a picture of a man smoking, with skulls floating in the background. A Brazilian label shows an unhappy couple in bed, with a warning about impotence from smoking.
Another label image proposed (but not required) by the European Union is a drawing of a dead man, his eyes covered by a cloth, lying on a table. The words "Smokers die younger" appear next to that image. Hammond's team didn't analyze the effectiveness of those labels.
In the surveys, Hammond's team asked smokers in the four countries studied how often they noticed the warning labels on cigarettes and whether the labels made them try to quit smoking or think about smoking's health risks.
U.S. smokers — who had the smallest, least-detailed warning labels — were the least likely to report noticing or reacting to the labels. "The U.S. warnings performed poorly compared to those in other countries," write Hammond and colleagues.
In contrast, Canadian smokers — who had the biggest, most graphic warning labels of the four countries — reported the greatest impact from those labels. Australia ranked second, followed by the U.K.
But the British label change made an impact on smokers, boosting their awareness and quit-smoking attempts — at least at first. That effect faded within 21/2 years after the label change, probably because British smokers had gotten used to the new label, Hammond's team notes.
U.S. warning labels may need a makeover to become more effective, the study suggests.
"The health warnings that appear on the side of U.S. cigarette packages provide even less health information than many other, more benign consumer goods," write Hammond and colleagues.
They point out that quit-smoking tips and encouragement are packed inside Canadian cigarette packages.
Putting quit-smoking resources (such as web sites and toll-free smoking cessation phone lines) on cigarette packages might also help, Hammond's team suggests.
By Miranda Hitti
Reviewed by Louise Chang
© 2007 WebMD, LLC.. All Rights Reserved. The news appears in the March issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
In the study, researchers surveyed nearly 15,000 adult smokers in the United States, U.K., Canada, and Australia to test the effectiveness of the warning labels used in those four countries. The surveys were conducted between 2002 and 2005. The key finding: The U.S. labels, which were the smallest and least detailed, were also the least effective.
"The current findings, along with previous research, suggest that U.S. smokers might benefit from large graphic warnings on cigarette packages," write the researchers, who include David Hammond, Ph.D., of Canada's University of Waterloo.
U.S. cigarette labels include four warnings written on the side of cigarette packages.
Canadian, Australian, and British cigarette warning labels are much bigger, include more health warnings, and appear on the front and back of the packages.
The Canadian label covers half of the front and back of cigarette packages. It includes 16 warnings in print as well as pictures, such as a graphic suggestive of impotence and the words "Tobacco use can make you impotent."
The Australian label includes six written warnings but no pictures. It covers a quarter of the front and a third of the back of cigarette packages.
The U.K. revised its cigarette warning label in late 2002, adding 10 written warnings (such as "Smoking when pregnant harms your baby") for a total of 16 written warnings on the front and back of the package. The warning text was also enlarged at that time.
Some other countries get even more graphic with their warning labels, according to the report. For instance, a Thai label includes a picture of a man smoking, with skulls floating in the background. A Brazilian label shows an unhappy couple in bed, with a warning about impotence from smoking.
Another label image proposed (but not required) by the European Union is a drawing of a dead man, his eyes covered by a cloth, lying on a table. The words "Smokers die younger" appear next to that image. Hammond's team didn't analyze the effectiveness of those labels.
In the surveys, Hammond's team asked smokers in the four countries studied how often they noticed the warning labels on cigarettes and whether the labels made them try to quit smoking or think about smoking's health risks.
U.S. smokers — who had the smallest, least-detailed warning labels — were the least likely to report noticing or reacting to the labels. "The U.S. warnings performed poorly compared to those in other countries," write Hammond and colleagues.
In contrast, Canadian smokers — who had the biggest, most graphic warning labels of the four countries — reported the greatest impact from those labels. Australia ranked second, followed by the U.K.
But the British label change made an impact on smokers, boosting their awareness and quit-smoking attempts — at least at first. That effect faded within 21/2 years after the label change, probably because British smokers had gotten used to the new label, Hammond's team notes.
U.S. warning labels may need a makeover to become more effective, the study suggests.
"The health warnings that appear on the side of U.S. cigarette packages provide even less health information than many other, more benign consumer goods," write Hammond and colleagues.
They point out that quit-smoking tips and encouragement are packed inside Canadian cigarette packages.
Putting quit-smoking resources (such as web sites and toll-free smoking cessation phone lines) on cigarette packages might also help, Hammond's team suggests.
SOURCES: Hammond, D. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, March 2007; Vol. 32: pp. 210-217. News release, Elsevier Health Sciences.
By Miranda Hitti
Reviewed by Louise Chang
Popular in Health
- Environmental Working Group's top sunscreens for 2013 12 Photos
- Which sunscreens are recommended for 2013?
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- Handbags may contain more germs than average toilet flush
- Disney pulls show that makes fun of gluten-free child
- Ketamine shown to help fight treatment-resistant depression
- Doctor: Gel manicures a potential skin cancer risk
- FDA raises concerns about experimental sleep aid suvorexant
If they we shut down once and for all and not legal anymore ... would we not be saving human lifes as we are trying to do everyday.
Not only that ... would it not be good for the enviroment too and the people around us.
Let's start with shutting down those company's once and for all and at the same time ... help those smokers to quit for their own health sake.
Of course there are other ways to save the human race but this is a start!
Same for secondhand smoke. I don't know that perfume and the like don't cause cancer, but so far, there's no link. You can find studies about non-smoking waitresses in smoking bars and how much more often they get cancer than anyone else, but the same isn't true for workers in the Macy's perfume aisles. If it turns out it does cause health problems, then it'll go the way of cigarettes.
Cigarette smoke does NOT cause cancer.
Listen up, CIGARETTE SMOKE DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.
No one KNOWS what CAUSES cancer.
If we KNEW what CAUSED canced, we would develop a cure. But since we don't, we can't.
Pardon me for raising my voice, but you continue to repeat anti-tobacco zealot propaganda as if it was factual.
What you claim is not supported by the facts. The majority of smokers do not develop cancer, conclusively proving smoking does NOT "cause" cancer.
Cancer is more hereditary than it is environmental. And, the bottom line is no one knows what causes cancer, not even those "scientists" who (falsely) claim "second hand smoke" causes cancer.
There is NO possible way you can support your assertion that perfumes or other noxious odors do not cause cancer.
"Scientists" set out to "prove" second hand smoke "caused" cancer and that is what they concluded. That is not science, that is propaganda and the same method can be used to "prove" drinking water or anything else causes cancer.
I do not smoke but that does not mean I belong to the anti-tobacco zealots.
Anti-tobacco zealots are little different than any other group of zealots and encouraging them is poor public policy.
What I don't see, is if you all are so happy with your choice to smoke (or if you are so very determined that it remain a freedom for others) - why do you have an objection to a warning on the package telling you about the health risks? It's done for other products, why not this one?
And the scientific evidence on secondhand smoke is solid, so, no, you can't force me to breathe it - you want to have all the choice to smoke, but take that choice away from me? Nope. You made your choice, I made mine.
You can choose to smoke for yourself. You cannot choose to smoke for me. Pretty simple, right?