Plain Tobacco Packs Likely to Deter Smoking

Studies on the health impact of standardized cigarette packs suggest they can deter non-smokers from taking up the habit and may cut the number of cigarettes smokers get through, a study shows

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - Studies on the health impact of "plain" or standardized cigarette packs suggest they can deter non-smokers from taking up the habit and may cut the number of cigarettes smokers get through, scientists said on Tuesday.

In a collection of scientific papers in the journal Addiction, researchers said that while standardized packs were still too new to provide substantial evidence, studies so far showed they were likely to reduce smoking rates.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Britain plans before May to become the second country in the world to introduce non-branded, standardized packaging for cigarettes, after the government promised last month to pass legislation that would come into effect in 2016.

Australia introduced standardized packaging two years ago in the face of fierce opposition from the tobacco industry. Its law forced cigarettes to be sold in plain green packs with health warnings and images showing the damaging effects of smoking.

In the Addiction series of studies, researchers found that after Australia's move in 2012, when plain packages were introduced and the health warnings and images on them were made larger, smoking in outdoor areas of cafes, bars and restaurants declined and fewer smokers left their packs visible on tables.

Another study found that removing brand imagery from packs increased the focus on health warnings among occasional smokers and adolescents just starting to smoke.

Robert West, editor-in-chief of the journal, said plain packaging's effect on young potential smokers was likely to be the most important initial impact.

"Even if standardized packaging had no effect at all on current smokers and only stopped one in 20 young people from being lured into smoking (in the UK), it would save about 2,000 lives a year," he told reporters at a briefing in London.

Tobacco firms have fought hard against the new law, saying standard packs infringe on intellectual property rights covering branding and will only increase counterfeiting and smuggling.

But Ann McNeill, a professor of tobacco addiction at King's College London, said cigarette makers should note that if their product had been invented today, it would never have even reached the consumer market.

"For an addictive product that kills so many of its users, the tobacco industry should consider itself fortunate that ... it is allowed to sell its toxic products at all, let alone try to make them attractive through the packaging," she said.

 

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/1Bj1J8q

Addiction 2015.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe