BBC News Online
London, UK
29 August, 2007


Smokers to face picture warnings

Images highlighting the dangers of smoking will be printed on all tobacco products sold in the UK by the end of 2009, under regulations being set out.

Manufacturers will have to start complying from October next year.

After a public consultation 15 images, including ones of diseased lungs, have been chosen to accompany text warnings about lung cancer and heart disease.

Anti-smoking campaigners welcomed the move but smokers' lobby group Forest said they were being "victimised".

It comes just over a month before the minimum age for buying tobacco in England and Wales increases from 16 to 18, bringing it in line with alcohol.

EC keen

As well as publishing the legislation on Wednesday, the Department of Health will unveil the 15 images - chosen from an original list of 40 - that are to be used.

The government promised it would introduce picture warnings on cigarette packets in its public health white paper in 2004 and in recent years the European Commission has been urging member countries to do so as well.

Under the new rules, it is expected that cigarette packs with written warnings only will not be allowed on sale past September 30 next year.

For other tobacco packets, the deadline will be September 30 2009.

Ministers have said the current system of written warnings has become less effective.

Other countries such as Canada and Brazil have already introduced picture warnings and research shows it has been effective in raising awareness about the risks associated with smoking.

'Smokers deterred'

A study by Canada's University of Waterloo earlier this year found that 15% of Canadian smokers had been deterred from having a cigarette - more than double the rate in Australia and the US which had text warnings at the time of the research.

Amanda Sandford, from anti-smoking campaigners Ash, said she hoped the chosen images would be as graphic as possible.

"Evidence from international studies is that the stronger warnings are better," she said.

But Neil Rafferty, a spokesman for smokers' lobby group Forest, described the initiative as the "victimisation" of smokers.

"You could construct exactly the same argument for placing graphic images on bottles of alcohol, but because most people like to drink alcohol, the government doesn't want to offend the majority.

"The government are bullying smokers simply because they can get away with it."

The legislation comes weeks after England came into line with the rest of the UK by banning smoking in enclosed public places, including pubs and restaurants.

When it came in on 1 July, the ban was hailed as the "single most important public health legislation for a generation" by Health Secretary Alan Johnson.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6967160.stm

Do that in Canada... diseased lungs, etc.

hasn't done anything.

Smokers dont look at the packs and I dont believe it will make any difference to anyone . shame they wont be doing that to products containing high sugar!

wonder what the pics would be of?

Rotten teeth and big bellies!!!

I don't think it'll make any difference either. I know that I didn't take any notice of the warnings on the cigarette packs when I was a smoker.




The Big Question: Do ever more gruesome warnings really put people off smoking?

The Independent
London, UK
Published: 30 August 2007

Why are we asking this question now?

The Government had decided to make it compulsory for cigarette manufacturers to include graphic pictures of diseased lungs, hearts and other organs on all tobacco products sold in Britain by the end of 2009. After consulting the public and carrying out market research, the Department of Health has chosen 15 hard-hitting images that will be used to accompany stark warnings about lung cancer and heart disease. In 2004, the Government promised to introduce such images on cigarette packets in a White Paper and yesterday it published details of the new rules. It is expected that cigarette packs without the new warnings will not be allowed on sale after 30 September 2008. Other tobacco products will be included in the new regulations from 30 September 2009.

Why is the Government introducing this policy?

Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, says: "Picture warnings are the next vital step in reducing the number of people who smoke. We are committed to continuing to drive down smoking rates in the UK as smoking remains the number one cause of ill health and early death. We have already made a lot of progress with stark written warnings on cigarette packs. Today's announcement, together with the introduction of the smoke-free law last month and our plans to raise the legal age of sale for tobacco products will potentially save thousands of lives and others will be spared the misery of watching family and friends die prematurely from smoke-related illnesses."

Is there any hard evidence that gruesome picture warnings work?

A study published in the British Medical Journal this month found that the bigger and more graphic the warnings are on a cigarette packet, the more effective the health message becomes. It concluded: "Smokers are not fully informed about the risks of smoking. Warnings that are graphic, larger and more comprehensive in content are more effective in communicating the health risks of smoking." Furthermore, it found that smokers who perceive a greater health risk from smoking are more likely to want to quit, and to quit successfully. Professor Robert West of Cancer Research UK estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 people would stop smoking as a result of the new adverts. This would translate into saving around 2,500 lives a year, he added.

Do any other countries use graphic images on their packets?

In Europe, Britain will lead the way in one respect. Belgium has already adopted picture warnings but only on cigarettes. Romania and Finland, meanwhile, plan to implement similar picture warnings on cigarettes next year. Canada was the first country to use graphic images to reinforce the written warnings. Several other countries, notably Australia, Brazil and Thailand, have also followed Canada's lead.

But do smokers take any notice of health warnings?

Scientists compared the impact of the different types of health warnings on cigarette packets in four countries, Britain, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Although virtually every country in the world includes health warnings on cigarette packets, the size, number and way the information is presented differs significantly from one to the other. In looking in detail at just four countries, the researchers found that the stronger the warning, the more knowledgeable the smokers were about the health risks of their habit.

If the evidence is so clear-cut, why do people object?

It comes down to a person's right to choose when it comes to personal risk. The pro-smoking lobby argue that it is illogical for the Government to spend so much time and effort on anti-smoking "propaganda" when other activities in life are almost as dangerous. Neil Rafferty, a spokesman for Forest, the smokers' lobby group, described the latest effort of the Government as another example of how smokers are being victimised.

"You could construct exactly t he same argument for placing graphic images on bottles of alcohol, but because most people like to drink alcohol, the government doesn't want to offend the majority. The Government are bullying smokers simply because they can get away with it," Mr Rafferty said.

Are fewer people smoking now because of health warnings?

It's difficult to say if it has a direct impact, but in general smoking is in decline although there continues to be a significant number of young people who take it up – especially teenage girls who are on average twice as likely as boys to start the habit. According to Government statistics, in 2006 some 16 per cent of 15-year-old boys smoked regularly compared with 24 per cent of 15-year-old girls. One in a hundred 11-year-olds is thought to smoke regularly, and one in five 15-year-olds has taken up the habit. Smoking has the highest prevalence among the 20-24 age group, with 34 per cent of men and 30 per cent of women of this age smoking regularly.

Can smokers do anything about the new warnings?

They may want to buy the sort of cardboard cigarette cases on sale in France, which conveniently hide the messages when carrying a cigarette packet. In Spain you can buy a range of stickers with remarks like "living is fatal" and "driving may endanger your health". In Britain, smokers can buy stickers saying "buy your own fags" and "smoking is cool".

Why does the Government persecute smokers in this way?

The simple (non conspiratorial) answer is that smoking is the largest known preventable cause of cancer, which accounts for 30 per cent of all cancer deaths – some 400,000 excess deaths in Britain each year. Smoking is known to increase the risk of lethal cancers of the lung, mouth, larynx, oesophagus, bladder, kidney and pancreas. Colon cancer has also recently been added to that long list. In addition, smoking affects the chances of developing heart disease, one of the biggest of all killers. Several studies found that quitting smoking, even in a regular, long-term smoker, significantly reduces the risk of developing these diseases. For instance, within five years of quitting, the risk among former smokers of developing lung cancer falls to half of that for current smokers. After 10 to 15 years, the risk becomes the same as for non-smokers.

Should we use graphic pictures to stop people smoking?

Yes...

* Cigarettes are the biggest single cause of preventable deaths,and anything that stops people smoking is good

* Young people, especially teenage girls, think smoking is cool, and horrible pictures may persuade them it is not

* Studies show that the bigger and more graphic the images, the more knowledgeable are the smokers of the health risks they run

No...

* People have a right to choose their one level of personal risk without vicious government propaganda

* The relatives of people who have died of smoking may be offended by images used in this way

* If smoking really is so dangerous and anti-social, why not make it illegal? At least that would be more honest than using pictures


http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2906302.ece

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. As a former smoker, I can tell you that the teeny warning on every pack of cigarettes was easy to ignore. A graphic picture of a blackened or cancerous lung would have been a bit harder for me to overlook and probably would have caused me to think more seriously about quitting a lot sooner than I did.
They show driver's education students rather grapic movies about the results of driving carelessly to emphasize the warning that driving carelessly can get you killed. Why? Because it's human nature to say, 'that won't happen to me' when someone verbally warns you, but a bit harder to deny that we are not immune to injury and death when presented with pictures of people just like us who thought the same thing and found out differently.
People have a right to choose their level of personal risk, but they also have a right to be fully informed as to what those risks are. Telling someone considering taking up smoking 'you could wind up with lung cancer' isn't nearly as informative as adding, 'and this is what that looks like'.

It amazes me that ANY government believes that awareness about smoking can be heightened at this point. The warning is on the pack, we see advertisements about the negative aspects of smoking in newspapers, magazines, and tv; we are taught about it in school, WE GET IT. We KNOW drugs are bad, they are illegal, people STILL do them. Alcohol is BAD, but its legal and still gets promoted on TV all the time. WHERE is the line?

The constant theme is this - forget good and bad. Make people responsible for their actions. If you drink and drive, you get punished. If you get cancer from smoking, thats your dime, the government doesnt foot the bill. You get high and ruin your life, dont expect handouts. The government needs to get out of the business of moral rights and leave that to religion and society.

Nope, I dont smoke or do drugs, but I do grow weary of people placing blame when they should be accepting it on themself.

I wonder... if they did this (you smoked and got cancer, it's your dime) would that then apply to: you have heart disease, diabetes, etc, you're overweight so you can just rot?

There is a bit of difference between footing a bill and refusing service, is there not?

Certainly in the UK smokers pay a conciderable ammount of tax on every paket of cigarettes, in fact it has been said that if everyone here gave up smoking, our NHS would completely crumble.

Most things are self inflicted, apparently there are more deaths and injuries from horse riding than smoking.

I personally dont think cigarettes are anymore harmful than sugar and that was my previous point

Jo

well... at least my eating a donut doesn't cause someone sitting next to all the time to breathe in the sugar fumes and possibly get cancer (big lawsuit here due to secondhand smoke and it was won)

I dont buy the second hand smoke thing - what about car fumes, factory fumes, pesticide spraying... etc... Cigarettes dont smell very nice, but people sadly get cancer whether they have breathed in 1st hand or 2nd hand smoke or never been near a cigarette in their lives and there are also millions of smokers who dont get cancer or any "so-called" smoke related diseases!

It seems pretty unproven to me, just like most stuff our governments churn out

Somewhere in all this litigation and anti smoking thing, i believe there is some kind of hidden agenda.

well, as a person with asthma and a heart condition, i can walk around in a steel city, but if a smoker who has the smell on their clothes sits next to me all this crap gathers in my lungs and I have to yank out the inhaler.

I think pollution has been capped a lot.

both my parents smoked and died of cancer. I've seen what lungs look like of people who live with smokers.

It's just one more poison we should think about whether we want it in our bodies.

Agreed, totally. But we should be able to make that choice and be held accountable.