Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in the United States. From 1985 to date, one of four mandatory cigarette warnings proposed by the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984 has been displayed on cigarette packages. In addition to cigarette warnings, states like California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Oregon and Maine have implemented “Tobacco Control Programs” (TCP) to reduce the overall number of smokers. However, the decline in the rate of smoking is not occurring fast enough to meet the national health objective by 2010. The present U.S. cigarette warnings are verbal in form and provide information, which is inadequate but appropriate to make it legally adequate. On the other hand, warnings in other countries such as Canada and Brazil are more descriptive and specific and are accompanied by vivid and sometimes gruesome pictures. In the present study, six pictorial Canadian labels and four U.S. verbal labels were analyzed for potential effectiveness among eighty subjects using a survey questionnaire. The survey findings are compared with recent Canadian smoking data. It is concluded that placing pictorial labels on cigarette packages in the U.S. will allow the product to carry warnings that potentially provide better results than current verbal messages and less TCP funds will need to be used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MaxW., The Financial Impact of Smoking on Health-Related Costs: A Review of the Literature. American Journal of Health Promotion, 15, pp. 321–331, 2001.
2.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Perspectives in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Smoking-Attributable Mortality and Years of Potential Life Lost—United States, 1984. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 46: 20, pp. 444–451, 1997.
3.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs—United States, 1995–1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 51: 14, pp. 300–303, 2002a.
4.
GlanzeW. D.AndersonK., and AndersonL. E., Mosby's Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary (5th Edition), Elsevier Science, Health Science Division, 1998.
5.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Smoking-Attributable Mortality and Years of Potential Life Lost—United States, 1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 42: 33, pp. 645–648, 1993.
6.
GlantzS. A. and ParmleyW. W., Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Mechanisms and Risks, Journal of the American Medical Association, 273: 13, pp. 1047–1053, 1995.
7.
National Cancer Institute, Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Smoking and Tobacco Control Monographs, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, Monograph 10, 1999.
8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA/600/6-90/006F, 1992.
9.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Secondhand Smoke: What You Can Do about Secondhand Smoke as Parents, Decision Makers, and Building Occupants, EPA-402-F-93-004, 1993.
10.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2000.
11.
KrugmanD. M.FoxR. J., and FischerP. M., Do Cigarette Warnings Warn? Understanding What It Will Take to Develop More Effective Warnings. Journal of Health Communications, 4: 2, pp. 95–104, 1999.
12.
Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, Public Law No. 98-474, (15 U.S.C. 1341(b)), 1984.
13.
MalouffJ.SchutteN.FrohardtM.DemingW., and MantelliD., Preventing Smoking: Evaluating the Potential Effectiveness of Cigarette Warnings. The Journal of Psychology, 126: 4, pp. 371–383, 1992.
14.
Lieberman Research Inc., A Study of Public Attitude toward Cigarette Advertising and Promotion Programs. Unpublished report, 1986.
15.
BeltraminiR. F., Perceived Believability of Warning Label Information Presented in Cigarette Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 17: 1, pp. 26–32, 1988.
16.
FriedmannK., The Effect of Adding Symbols to Written Warning Labels on User Behavior and Recall. Human Factors, 30: 4, pp. 507–515, 1988.
17.
KrugmanD. M.FoxR. J.FischerP. M., and RojasT. H., Do Adolescents Attend to Warning in Cigarette Advertising? An Eye Tracking Approach. Journal of Advertising Research, Nov/Dec, pp. 39–52, 1994.
18.
FischerP. M.KrugmanD. M.FletcherJ. E.RichardJ.FoxR. J., and RojasT. H., An Evaluation of Health Warning in Cigarette Advertisement using Standard Marketing Research Methods: What Does It Mean to Warn?Tobacco Control, 2: 3, pp. 279–285, 1993.
19.
RobinsonT. N. and KillenJ. D., Do Cigarette Warning Labels Reduce Smoking? Paradoxical Effects among Adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151: 3, pp. 267–272, 1997.
20.
LaugheryK. R.DeJoyD. M., and WogalterM. S., Warnings and Risk Communication, Taylor and Francis, 1999.
21.
CarrollJ. R., More Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels Sought. Courier-Journal, August 26, 2003 11:38 AM, 2003.
22.
MacAn-MarkerM., Tobacco Wars: Singapore—The Picture of Health. Asia Times, 2003-09-05, 2003.
23.
NobelT., Smokers Hit with Shock Tactics, The Age, (Aug), 2003-08-31.
24.
BrusselsJ., A Picture Says More than a Thousand Words: Commission Decides on Graphic Health Warnings on Cigarette Packs, Europa, 2003-09-08, 2003.
25.
BienerL.HarrisJ. E., and HamiltonW., Impact of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Programme: Population Based Trend Analysis, British Medical Journal, 321, 2: 7257, pp. 351–354, 2000.
26.
PierceJ. P.GilpinE. A.EmeryS. L.WhiteM. M.RosbrookB., and BerryC. C., Has the California Tobacco Control Program Reduced Smoking?Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 4, pp. 893–899, 1998.
27.
California Department of Health Services, The California Tobacco Control Program: A Decade of Progress—Results from the California Tobacco Survey, 1990–1999. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of California, San Diego Tobacco Control Section, San Diego, California, 2001.
28.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Chronic Diseases Prevention: The Burden of Chronic Diseases and Their Risk Factors—National and State Perspectives. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 3, p. 40, 2002.
29.
U.S. Surgeon-General, Healthy People 2010: Objectives for Improving Health, Part B: Focus Areas 15–28 (2nd Edition), Volume II. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., 2000.
30.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Cigarette Smoking among Adults—United States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 51: 29, pp. 652–645, 2002b.
31.
PatrickS., One-in-Four Smoking Rate too High: Non-Smokers' Rights Association, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Feb 16, 2001, 12:20 p.m.
32.
DennisB., Canadian Smoking at Lowest Rate in 36 Years. Canadian Press, January 22, 2002.
33.
Canadian Cancer Society, Canadians Overwhelmingly Support Graphic Cigarette Warnings, 2002.
34.
Canadian Cancer Society, Focus Canada: Evaluation of New Warnings on Cigarette Packages, 2003.
35.
Non-Smokers' Rights Association (NSRA), Images of Canadian Health Warnings, Monday 27 January, 2003.
36.
CNN, Canada Study: Graphic Cigarette Warnings Effective. January 9, 2002, 7:45 PM EST, Canada, Ottawa, 2002.
37.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Fact Sheet: Declines in Lung Cancer Rates—California, 1988 to 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 49: 47, pp. 1061–1073, 2000.
