Compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement

Teresa Deatley, Eduardo Bianco, Kevin Welding, Joanna E Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family. Methods An existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a 'starting hub' was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types. Results Unique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62%) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin). Conclusion Overall, compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)220-224
Number of pages5
JournalTobacco Control
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

Uruguay
brand name
Product Packaging
social stratum
Tobacco Products
Names
Color
Tin
Walking
nicotine
Tobacco
purchase

Keywords

  • (MeSH): Public Policy
  • Low/Middle Income Country
  • Packaging and Labelling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement. / Deatley, Teresa; Bianco, Eduardo; Welding, Kevin; Cohen, Joanna E.

In: Tobacco Control, Vol. 27, No. 2, 01.03.2018, p. 220-224.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Deatley, Teresa ; Bianco, Eduardo ; Welding, Kevin ; Cohen, Joanna E. / Compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement. In: Tobacco Control. 2018 ; Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 220-224.
@article{9906fd070b7d481d9992f091a0147fed,
title = "Compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement",
abstract = "Introduction Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family. Methods An existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a 'starting hub' was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types. Results Unique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62{\%}) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin). Conclusion Overall, compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type.",
keywords = "(MeSH): Public Policy, Low/Middle Income Country, Packaging and Labelling",
author = "Teresa Deatley and Eduardo Bianco and Kevin Welding and Cohen, {Joanna E}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053402",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "220--224",
journal = "Tobacco Control",
issn = "0964-4563",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement

AU - Deatley, Teresa

AU - Bianco, Eduardo

AU - Welding, Kevin

AU - Cohen, Joanna E

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Introduction Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family. Methods An existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a 'starting hub' was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types. Results Unique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62%) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin). Conclusion Overall, compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type.

AB - Introduction Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family. Methods An existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a 'starting hub' was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types. Results Unique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62%) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin). Conclusion Overall, compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type.

KW - (MeSH): Public Policy

KW - Low/Middle Income Country

KW - Packaging and Labelling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042850594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042850594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053402

DO - 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053402

M3 - Article

C2 - 28416710

AN - SCOPUS:85042850594

VL - 27

SP - 220

EP - 224

JO - Tobacco Control

JF - Tobacco Control

SN - 0964-4563

IS - 2

ER -