David T Levy1, Darren Mays1, Zhe Yuan1, David Hammond2, James F Thrasher3. 1. Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Georgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA. 2. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While many countries have adopted prominent pictorial warning labels (PWLs) for cigarette packs, the USA still requires only small, text-only labels located on one side of the cigarette pack that have little effect on smoking-related outcomes. Tobacco industry litigation blocked implementation of a 2011 Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rule requiring large PWLs. To inform FDA action on PWLs, this study provides research-based estimates of their public health impacts. METHODS: Literature was reviewed to identify the impact of cigarette PWLs on smoking prevalence, cessation and initiation. Based on this analysis, the SimSmoke model was used to estimate the effect of requiring PWLs in the USA on smoking prevalence and, using standard attribution methods, on smoking-attributable deaths (SADs) and key maternal and child health outcomes. RESULTS: Available research consistently shows a direct association between PWLs and increased cessation and reduced smoking initiation and prevalence. The SimSmoke model projects that PWLs would reduce smoking prevalence by 5% (2.5%-9%) relative to the status quo over the short term and by 10% (4%-19%) over the long term. Over the next 50 years, PWLs are projected to avert 652 800 (327 000-1 190 500) SADs, 46 600 (17 500-92 300) low-birth-weight cases, 73 600 (27 800-145 100) preterm births and 1000 (400-2000) cases of sudden infant death syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring PWLs on all US cigarette packs would be appropriate for the protection of the public health, because it would substantially reduce smoking prevalence and thereby reduce SADs and the morbidity and medical costs associated with adverse smoking-attributable birth outcomes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
INTRODUCTION: While many countries have adopted prominent pictorial warning labels (PWLs) for cigarette packs, the USA still requires only small, text-only labels located on one side of the cigarette pack that have little effect on smoking-related outcomes. Tobacco industry litigation blocked implementation of a 2011 Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rule requiring large PWLs. To inform FDA action on PWLs, this study provides research-based estimates of their public health impacts. METHODS: Literature was reviewed to identify the impact of cigarette PWLs on smoking prevalence, cessation and initiation. Based on this analysis, the SimSmoke model was used to estimate the effect of requiring PWLs in the USA on smoking prevalence and, using standard attribution methods, on smoking-attributable deaths (SADs) and key maternal and child health outcomes. RESULTS: Available research consistently shows a direct association between PWLs and increased cessation and reduced smoking initiation and prevalence. The SimSmoke model projects that PWLs would reduce smoking prevalence by 5% (2.5%-9%) relative to the status quo over the short term and by 10% (4%-19%) over the long term. Over the next 50 years, PWLs are projected to avert 652 800 (327 000-1 190 500) SADs, 46 600 (17 500-92 300) low-birth-weight cases, 73 600 (27 800-145 100) preterm births and 1000 (400-2000) cases of sudden infant death syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring PWLs on all US cigarette packs would be appropriate for the protection of the public health, because it would substantially reduce smoking prevalence and thereby reduce SADs and the morbidity and medical costs associated with adverse smoking-attributable birth outcomes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Packaging and Labelling; Public policy; Surveillance and monitoring
Authors: David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Ann McNeill; Pete Driezen Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: James F Thrasher; Kamala Swayampakala; K Michael Cummings; David Hammond; Dien Anshari; Dean M Krugman; James W Hardin Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jennifer Cantrell; Donna M Vallone; James F Thrasher; Rebekah H Nagler; Shari P Feirman; Larry R Muenz; David Y He; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David D Kim; Parke E Wilde; Dominique S Michaud; Junxiu Liu; Lauren Lizewski; Jennifer Onopa; Dariush Mozaffarian; Fang Fang Zhang; John B Wong Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Daniel Romer; Stuart G Ferguson; Andrew A Strasser; Abigail T Evans; Mary Kate Tompkins; Joseph Macisco; Michael Fardal; Martin Tusler; Peters Ellen Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2018-01-05
Authors: Marissa G Hall; Anna H Grummon; Allison J Lazard; Olivia M Maynard; Lindsey Smith Taillie Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Allison J Lazard; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Seth M Noar; Beth A Reboussin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 5.825