A senate inquiry will examine draft laws which would see plain cigarette packaging mandated in Australia, Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding said.

The laws would ban advertising logos or trademarks on any cigarette packets so tobacco products would only carry plain labelling dominated by health warnings.

“There is no case for allowing any glossy brand promotion for a product that is lethal and addictive,” Senator Fielding said.

“Smoking related diseases cost the Australian community over $30 billion each year.

“Family First’s plain tobacco packaging bill would take the polish off cigarette branding and the positive images the tobacco giants try to associate with their products.”

Chair of Cancer Council Australia’s tobacco issues committee, Kylie Lindorff, said Family First’s reforms to tobacco product packaging are essential to reducing the unacceptable level of cancer death and disability caused by smoking in Australia.

“It is incongruous enough that a poorly regulated product that is available from retailers almost anywhere kills more than half of its consumers,” Ms Lindorff said.

“For the products to also be marketed in glossy packets intended to convey the aspirations or sense of identity of the consumer is even more absurd.”

The Heart Foundation also strongly supports Senator Fielding’s laws because current cigarette packaging is a potent form of advertising and promotion for smoking.

“Generic plain packaging, with a clear graphic warning on the front and back of the pack, should be mandated to counter the allure of smoking and reduce the disease burden it causes,” National Heart Foundation’s tobacco control spokesperson, Maurice Swanson said

The Public Health Association of Australia says smoking is the largest single preventable cause of death and disease in Australia, with over 15,000 deaths each year.

Family First introduced its Plain Tobacco Packaging (Removing Branding from Cigarette Packs) Bill 2009 on 20 August 2009.

Cigarettes are a clear public health problem. A significant number of people who smoke regularly throughout their lives will develop serious health problems including lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema. And for 30 years now, governments around the world have worked to change people’s attitudes toward smoking. Indeed, when I visited Tunisia in early November, they pointed out that 2009 was designated as a year-long anti-smoking campaign.

There are two classes of measures that have been taken to fight smoking (and related public health problems like alcohol and unhealthy eating). One is to make smoking less attractive in the short-term to counteract the positives of smoking. The other is to provide warnings about the dangers of smoking.

As I have written before in previous entries, one reason why smoking is so difficult to quit is that it provides some pleasure in the short term (and for the addicted smoker also the absence of painful cravings). The health risks are in the long-term and so they have a weaker pull over current behavior. Thus, measures like making it illegal to smoke indoors in public places and raising the price of cigarettes through taxes are aimed at decreasing the pleasure of smoking in the short term.

SmokersThe other major public health initiative is to influence the information that is available about smoking. For example, in the US, there are very few venues in which cigarette manufacturers are allowed to advertise, and so there are few positive messages about smoking in mainstream media. In addition, by law, cigarette packs have to come with a warning about the dangers of smoking.

A paper by Jochim Hansen, Susanne Winzeler, and Sascha Topolinski in the January 2010 issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology examined the effectiveness of these warnings on the attitudes of smokers toward smoking.

The authors reasoned that there are two kinds of smokers. Some smokers find that smoking is an important part of their self concept. They are truly smokers. Other people smoke cigarettes, but that is not an important part of their self-concept. They do not identify strongly as smokers.

There are also two kinds of warnings that are often given about smoking. Some of those messages are about the negative social consequences of smoking. For example, a warning might point out that “Smoking makes you unattractive.” Most of the warnings that actually appear on cigarette packs tend to focus on the danger of death associated with cigarettes, issuing warnings like “Cigarettes are dangerous for your health” or “Cigarettes cause lung cancer.”

In other posts, I have discussed the idea of mortality salience: that being reminded of your own mortality can affect your self-esteem. Hansen and colleagues reasoned that a cigarette warning that highlights that cigarettes may cause death could actually backfire. When someone identifies strongly as a smoker, then a warning that focuses on mortality can threaten that person’s self-esteem. Because they identify strongly as a smoker, the easiest way to boost their self-esteem is to increase their favorable attitude toward cigarettes.

To test this hypothesis, a number of cigarette smokers were tested. Some of these people were ones for whom smoking was an important part of their self-concept, while others were ones for whom smoking was not that important to their self-concept. The smokers read either a warning that talked about how smoking decreases a person’s attractiveness or a warning that talked about how smoking causes death. Later, these people rated their attitude toward smoking.

As these researchers predicted, if people thought smoking was an important part of their self-concept, they rated smoking as much more attractive if they read a warning that focused on death than if they read a warning focused on attractiveness. That is, for the group of smokers whose identity is bound up with smoking, the kinds of warnings that are typically shown on cigarette packs actually backfire.

This research suggests the importance of gathering evidence about programs that relate to the behavioral aspects of public health problems. On the surface, nobody could oppose big warnings on cigarettes that trumpet their health risks. However, we must be careful, because these warnings could actually do more harm than good.

By Art Markman
November 24, 2009, Psychologytoday

When, more than a decade ago now, smoking bans began to take effect around the world, researchers and public health officials feverishly collected data demonstrating the health benefits: lower levels of respiratory illness were reported among bar workers from Dublin to San Francisco after indoor smoking bans took effect, saliva tests revealed lower levels of nicotine concentration in hotel and restaurant workers once smokers were chucked outside, and hospital admissions for heart attack and other cardiovascular complications dropped significantly in states where indoor smoking was banned.

The U.S. surgeon general’s office issued a report in 2006 emphatically declaring that: “there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke,” and evidence confirming these findings continues to emerge almost weekly. And now, as indoor smoking bans gain traction worldwide and efforts to spread the bans to more U.S. states continue, researchers and public health officials are increasingly setting their sights on the next frontier in the battle against second hand smoke: the outdoors.

Many smokers already feel that their liberty to light up is being trimmed back—with bans moving beyond public buildings and offices to private apartments and public housing in some cities. And recent efforts, like that New York City health commissioner Thomas A. Farley, to extend the bans to public parks and beaches, and other cities’ parallel initiatives, which include parking structures and dining areas, are stirring up debate about whether the initiatives are going too far.

Reflecting on the existing scientific research on second hand smoke exposure outdoors, William Saletan of Slate.com sifts through the most relevant points from two major studies on the subject (the 2006 California Air Resources Board study, and a 2007 study from Stanford). Among the findings: outdoors, second hand smoke levels vary widely and quickly, depend on the individual’s distance from a smoker (farther than 6.5 feet or 2 meters, generally reduces exposure to “background” levels), are influenced by how confined the outdoor space is (if there are walls or fences), and the concentration of smokers in a given area. The data, Saletan concludes, point to the need for a measured approach for crafting policy to reduce second hand smoke exposure outdoors. He writes:

“If you want to argue for parkwide smoking bans based on asthma or on an analogy to noise pollution, go ahead and make that case. But let’s not cloud that debate by invoking the general harm of secondhand smoke. Studies of secondhand smoke have indeed moved outdoors. Their findings support restrictions on lighting up within a few feet of other people. But they don’t warrant more than that.”

A new study published in the November issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene may contribute to the debate. Researchers from the University of Georgia measured second hand smoke exposure among people sitting in the outdoor areas of bars and restaurants where indoor smoking was banned in the city of Athens, Georgia. “[T]he many indoor smoking bans established across the world have encouraged the movement of previous indoor smoking outdoors, and thus, estimating the extent of outdoor [second hand smoke] exposure of nonsmokers is a potentially significant public health issue,” they write. Over the course of six weeks in the summer and autumn of 2007, 23 non-smoking university students spent periods of six hours at a time seated in outdoor areas—including a bar, restaurant, and open area on the school’s campus—where smoking was permitted. Before and after the “hanging out” sessions, researchers measured the amount of cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, in participants’ saliva. (Samples were collected using Salivettes, or basically plastic tubes containing cotton swabs, and sent to labs at the Centers for Disease Control for testing).

The researchers deliberately conducted the experiments on nights when sporting events would draw big crowds to the bars and restaurants. They found that, in keeping with the research highlighted by Saletan, students sitting in an open-air part of campus experienced negligible levels of tobacco exposure, while those seated in the more confined spaces at bars and restaurants, experienced significant increases in cotinine concentrations. Levels rose by 162% among students hanging out at the bar, 102% among those at a restaurant, and 16% in the control setting. Yet, in spite of the shocking statistics, overall levels of exposure for all three areas remained relatively low, and would be classified as “background” level, according to measures established by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

So what does that mean in terms of the scientific argument for outdoor smoking bans? The researchers say that additional investigation, including more precise figures about the number of smokers in a particular space, the rate of smoking and measurements in different populations are important to achieving more definitive results. But, generally speaking, hanging out in an outdoor smoking area exposes you to less second hand smoke than being in an indoor, confined space with smokers, and the more space you have between yourself and smokers, the lower levels of exposure you will have. So, this particular study doesn’t ring the death knell for outdoor smoking. But, the researchers point out, wielding the official trump card of the public health argument:

Although the increment in cotinine concentrations and, thus, the [second hand smoke] exposure levels were relatively low at the sites of interest, the current view is that there is no level of personal exposure to [second hand smoke] that can be regarded as safe. This study demonstrates the ongoing exposure of nonsmokers to [second hand smoke] outside restaurants and bars, and the limitations of indoor smoking bans alone in protecting the public from exposure to [second hand smoke] outside these establishments.

In other words, the movement to ban smoking in outdoor spaces is here to stay.

By Tiffany Sharples O’Callaghan, November 19, 2009 Wellness

Beware of nicotine posing as candy and alcohol that tastes like punch.

That’s the combined heads-up given this week by the state Department of Health and a grass-roots parents group trying to quell underage drinking and tobacco use.

Smoking and other uses of tobacco products continue to decline, but nicotine is coming at children in breath mints, candy and toothpicks, said Amy Sands, program manager for the health department’s Tobacco Prevention and Control Program.

“The products are designed to make tobacco addiction more accessible as well as to promote the dual use of cigarettes and smokeless products, creating an even stronger addiction,” she said.

ParentsEmpowered.org kicked off the fourth year of its ongoing public awareness campaign against underage drinking Thursday with some good news.

Statewide averages for underage drinking are down across all grade levels for lifetime use, including use within a 30-day time frame and binge drinking in general, according to the Student Health and Risk Prevention survey.

The survey also found that teens cited parents’ disapproval of alcohol in general as the main reason they don’t drink.

The survey, conducted by Dan Jones & Associates, also found an average 4 percent reduction in drinking among teens over the past two years and across every high school grade. That means about:

11,260 fewer Utah children reporting ever trying alcohol in their lifetimes.

5,520 fewer have used alcohol in the past 30 days in the last two years.

2,600 fewer underage binge/heavy drinkers in Utah than two years ago.

While most Utah parents don’t drink, 65 percent of them generally agree their child could be exposed to alcohol.

“This is significant since many Utah parents often erroneously believe their children are insulated from the dangers of underage drinking because of their upbringing and their children don’t need parents’ help to stay alcohol-free,” said Parents Empowered spokeswoman Sherri Clark.

Parents should continue to be vigilant about tobacco products as well, said Sands, adding “there is no safe tobacco product,” and in any ingested form tobacco causes heart and other organ diseases, cancer and death.

Sands specifically outed Camel Snus, a smokeless — and with the added attraction of being spitless — tobacco in tea bag-type pouches touting refreshing flavors such as “frost,” now available in convenience stores.

With its “pleasure for whatever” slogan and concealable size, kids can easily take it into the classroom, she said. It also comes in a container shaped like a cell phone.

There’s something particularly insidious about hiding the most addictive element in tobacco in candy, said Dr. Ellie Brownstein, a University of Utah Health Care pediatrician.

Because the products have arrived so quickly, not much is know about them, she said. But so-called “dissolvables” have three times the nicotine, and contain cinnamaldehyde, a toxic insecticide, fungicide, corrosion inhibitor and severe skin irritant. Coumarin, a food additive the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned in 1978 and was removed from cigarettes in 1997, also has been found in the product.

Losing 400,000 smokers a year, the tobacco industry is busy figuring out ways to promote products to have an ever-young market, Sands said, noting that adults trying to quit shouldn’t be fooled into thinking they can be used to help them get off nicotine.

“Ironically, the cake mix in your cupboard is more regulated than these new smokeless products, which are known to be addictive and destructive,” she said. “We, and our children, are to be human guinea pigs in the tobacco industry’s pursuit of profits. The only way to eliminate risk is to quit or never start.”

Oct. 25, 2009 Deseretnews

OTTAWA — A ban on flavoured tobacco products will come into effect as early as July.
The Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act, which received royal assent Thursday, will mean an immediate ban on advertising flavoured tobacco products in newspapers and magazines.

Flavoured cigars, known as cigarillos, blunt wraps and flavoured flavored cigarscigarettes, will come off store shelves as of July 5, 2010, and a ban at the manufacturer and importer level will come into effect April 6, 2010.

The cigarillos, which come in a variety of candy flavours including chocolate, grape and tropical punch, were criticized as being marketed to children and youth.

The bill passed the House of Commons unanimously in June with the backing of all three opposition parties.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

The Health Department’s grim new anti-smoking signs should start showing up at bodega cash registers in December – putting blackened lungs in your face in time for Christmas.

The signs will bear messages such as “SMOKING KILLS” with stark images of diseased and cancerous lips and lungs, posted at all 12,000 city stores that sell cigarettes.

The Board of Health on Tuesday approved the signs, which will be 1 foot square on cash registers and 2 feet square on cigarette displays – a concession to opponents who said the originally proposed 3-foot-square signs would hurt retailers.

“Pictorial warnings are much more effective than text-only warnings,” said Anne Pearson, a senior Health Department lawyer.

“It communicates the information at the time and place that it matters most,” Pearson added.

She estimated the city will spend $50,000 a year to produce, distribute and update the signs.

After a grace period of a month or two, inspectors can issue fines ranging from $200 to $2,000 to store owners who don’t post the signs.

alisberg@nydailynews.com

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — During the months of October and November, Altadis U.S.A. and its retailers will be sponsoring “A Special Evening of Cigars, Camaraderie & Caring,” to be hosted by retail tobacconists nationwide. The event, entitled “Operation Hope,” will benefit the Montecristo Relief Organization.

The Montecristo Relief Organization was founded in 1999 by Altadis U.S.A. after two devastating hurricanes swept through the Caribbean causing unimaginable terror and destruction. More than 11,000 people were killed, millions injured and millions more left homeless and without means of support. Over the past 10 years, the Montecristo Relief Organization has donated millions of dollars to build homes, schools and medical facilities and provide scholarships and economic opportunities for victims in the Caribbean and the United States.

Consumers attending the event make a $75 donation to the charity. In return they receive special limited-edition gift boxes of Montecristo cigars and Signature Accessories valued at more than $125.

“We are extremely grateful to our retailers and consumers who have supported the Montecristo Relief Organization over the years,” said Altadis U.S.A. executive vice president Jim Colucci. “The financial aid we have received has made a huge difference to those who depend on us to help rebuild their lives.”

Materials announcing the date and time of the event will begin appearing in retails stores shortly.

Altadis U.S.A., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., is a leading cigar maker that generates more than half of its parent Altadis S.A.’s worldwide cigar sales. Altadis U.S.A. manufactures and markets both premium and mass-market cigars under such brand names as Don Diego, El Producto, H. Upmann and Montecristo.


September 18, 2009 Cspnet

Cigar lover Dick DiAndrea doesn’t mind paying for a good smoke.

“I will smoke cigars regardless of what they cost,” the Altoona man said while puffing on a $6 cigar at Havana Daydreaming last week.

He said a good cigar for him costs about $2.50, and he buys his cigars by the box.

The cost of a good stogie may be going up again.

Taxes and laws are not new to the tobacco industry, but more changes are in the works.

One state budget proposal includes a plan to tax cigars and smokeless tobacco. Pennsylvania is the only U.S. state without such a tax, the governor’s office stated in a 2009-10 budget overview.

Blair Candy Co. co-owner Pat Dandrea, whose Altoona business also sells tobacco products, said taxing such items has a limit.

“Eventually the cash cow will go away,” he said. “You can only tax it so far.”

He said he doesn’t claim smoking is healthy, but he thinks for fairness sake, everyone should get taxed.

“Cigarettes are an easy thing because nobody is supposed to want to have them,” he said.

The other major changes began after President Barack Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act into law in June. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, now in charge of regulating the tobacco industry, started making changes to packaging and has plans to make even more.

Dandrea said photographs of babies with birth defects will start appearing on packs as a warning to the affects of smoking while pregnant.

A manager at Nic’s Tobacco Outlet at 3101 Pleasant Valley Blvd. said as of Sept. 1, the store can no longer sell flavored cocktail cigarettes which come in cherry, chocolate and vanilla flavors.

The flavored smokes are “really good sellers,” Donna Laich said.

Packaging on Pall Malls has already changed. The pack reads “blue” where it once read “light,” Laich said.

By July 2010, the words “light,” “low” and “mild” will not be allowed to appear on packs unless approved, the FDA said on its Web site. Package warnings will cover up to 50 percent of the package and will have larger print.

Any cigarettes that taste like anything other than menthol will be outlawed, Dandrea said.

Cigars and other tobacco products increased in price after the president signed The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 into law in February.

Small cigars – weighing three pounds or less per 1,000 – were taxed about $48 more per 1,000 in April, according to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Web site. Taxes for large cigars – weighing more than three pounds per 1,000 – increased more than 30 percent from March to April with taxes not to exceed about 40 cents a cigar.

DiAndrea said he worries for local businesses because, in the face of taxes, the part-time cigar smokers may snub the once in a while butt for good, causing a drop in sales.


© Altoonamirror

Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland tells us that a “display ban is about stopping advertising to young people, not stopping adult smokers buying tobacco or shops selling it”.
It’s staggering that ASH Scotland seeks to perpetuate this fallacy. In the first instance, the vast majority of the academic research looks more explicitly at tobacco advertising than tobacco displays, which is an important distinction. Statements of causality cannot be made between displays and smoking prevalence when what is being studied are more explicit forms of advertising.

Since the introduction of graphic warnings on all cigarette packets it is difficult to argue that any form of display is appealing, or an effective advertisement. A graphic depiction of throat cancer, a corpse, open-heart surgery, and warnings that smoking can kill don’t exactly sell a product. Indeed, research shows that such warnings on cigarette packets destroy brand value.

Finally, even Sheila Duffy has to concede that our young have to first see the displays before they can have any effect. As the Scottish Government’s own statistics show, 87 per cent of regular youth smokers obtain their cigarettes from friends or family. Regardless of how alarmist ASH Scotland wishes to be, the fact remains there are only 1.36 new smokers for every tobacco outlet across Scotland each year.


© News.scotsman