Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2010
Insights into pictorial health warnings on tobacco product packages marketed in Uttar Pradesh, India.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
D S Aruna, Rajesh G, Mohanty Vikrant Ranjan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Government of India issued an undertaking in the Supreme Court mandating pictorial health warnings (PHWs) on packages of tobacco products from 31st May, 2009 under " Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act " (COTPA) guidelines. This constitutes a key economic channel for educating people on devastating health impacts of deadly products within in a vivid and memorable way. Few studies have investigated PHWs on tobacco products marketed in India.
OBJECTIVES: To assess met guidelines for pictorial health warnings under packaging and labeling rules on packages of collected tobacco products specified by COTPA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Snowball/network sampling design was followed to obtain samples of 37 different tobacco brands, 18 in smoking form (12 cigarette, 6 bidi brands) and 19 in smokeless form (4 chewing tobacco, 11 Gutkha and 4 Khaini brands) marketed at retail outlets at Muradnagar. They were analyzed for their compliance with guidelines through checklist by one calibrated examiner.
RESULTS: PHWs were absent on packages of 5 tobacco brands. Fifteen tobacco brands had PHWs smaller than stipulated 40% of principal display area; 6 brands of bidis had PHWs on deceptive backgrounds, 3 of which were placed on a curved axis. Misleading descriptors and promotional messages were also present.
CONCLUSION: Locally marketed tobacco products were not compliant with packaging and labeling rules specified by COTPA. This highlights the need for more stringent implementation of COTPA guidelines to combat the ever-growing tobacco menace.
OBJECTIVES: To assess met guidelines for pictorial health warnings under packaging and labeling rules on packages of collected tobacco products specified by COTPA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Snowball/network sampling design was followed to obtain samples of 37 different tobacco brands, 18 in smoking form (12 cigarette, 6 bidi brands) and 19 in smokeless form (4 chewing tobacco, 11 Gutkha and 4 Khaini brands) marketed at retail outlets at Muradnagar. They were analyzed for their compliance with guidelines through checklist by one calibrated examiner.
RESULTS: PHWs were absent on packages of 5 tobacco brands. Fifteen tobacco brands had PHWs smaller than stipulated 40% of principal display area; 6 brands of bidis had PHWs on deceptive backgrounds, 3 of which were placed on a curved axis. Misleading descriptors and promotional messages were also present.
CONCLUSION: Locally marketed tobacco products were not compliant with packaging and labeling rules specified by COTPA. This highlights the need for more stringent implementation of COTPA guidelines to combat the ever-growing tobacco menace.