Scare Tactics and Cigarette Labels

_random_

Jewel Runner
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,794
Location
Behind the man behind the throne
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/cigarette-packaging-graphic/story?id=12109439

The modest one-liners of the dangers of smoking, now featured on cigarette packs, may soon turn into gory images and messages that will cover nearly half the pack.


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration unveiled 36 jarring labels Wednesday aimed at escalating efforts to warn smokers of the fatal consequences of cigarette smoking. These labels represent the agency's exercise of its new authority over tobacco products and the most significant change in cigarette warnings since companies were forced to add the mandatory Surgeon General's warning in 1965.

Some of the proposed images include a man smoking from a tracheotomy hole, a cadaver labeled to show it died from lung disease, and a pained infant exposed to smoke.

For decades federal regulators and health experts have warned that cigarettes are deadly. But Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the ramped-up measures "a timely and much-needed shot in the arm."

"The current warnings are more than 25 years old, go unnoticed on the side of cigarette packs and fail to effectively communicate the serious health risks of smoking," said Myers.

Although smoking rates have declined overall since the 1960s, health officials noted that rates have leveled off in the last decade. About 21 percent of U.S. adults, and nearly 20 percent of high school students smoke cigarettes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The agency's goal is to reduce the 443,000 deaths associated with tobacco use each year.

Previous studies suggest that graphic health warnings displayed in other countries worked better than text warnings to motivate smokers to quit, and nonsmokers not to start.

The U.S. was the first country to require health warnings on tobacco products. But it is now playing catch up to more than 30 countries that already require large, graphic cigarette warnings.

Images used on cigarette packs in countries like Canada are so disturbing that some smokers buy covers for their cigarette packs to block out the images.

"Having a coordinated policy, having these warnings, making them so visible, making them real is, in my opinion and in the opinion of the American Cancer Society, going to be a very positive step forward," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society.

But some experts wonder how long the proposed fear messages will work.

"The point of putting these pictures is the shock value, and research tells us shock value on its own rarely works," said Timothy Edgar, associate professor and graduate program director of health communication at Emerson College in Boston, Mass.

Most Americans already know that smoking is dangerous -- the message that the FDA is trying to convey, said Edgar. And while the campaign may dissuade some smokers at the start of the campaign, the communication tactic may not spur many to kick the habit for good, if at all.

"I think people are still going to have a hard time saying, yes that's me on that label," said Edgar. "There's a physical addiction involved in this as well. It's not an absolute choice for many who smoke."

According to Joy Schmitz, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas medical school in Houston, the intended message will more likely reach younger adults, or those who may have just picked up the habit.

"It might give them pause for concern or contemplation as to their choice of smoking when they see the pretty dramatic scene on the packages," said Schmitz.

But evidence suggests effective messages not only communicate the danger but also offer ways to help change behavior, said Edgar.

"There's none of that here," said Edgar, who suggested the campaign should also offer direct actions for people to take to quit smoking.

"Simply showing someone that there is a severe outcome or they're personally responsible is not enough. They need to know there's something they can do about it," he said.

Schmitz agreed.

"It needs to be combined with the anti-smoking policies, restricting smoking in the environment, as well as promoting effective evidence-based smoking cessation treatments that are available," she said.

The FDA will accept public comment on the proposed labels through January 2011, and will select nine to use by June 2011. The agency will then require all manufacturers to use the labels on all U.S. sold cigarettes by October 22, 2012.
Spoiler Some samples :
h_cigarette_warning_1_ssh.jpg

h_cigarette_warning_12_ssh.jpg

h_cigarette_warning_5_ssh.jpg

h_cigarette_warning_3_ssh.jpg


Will this work to significantly deter smoking?
If it is effective, is it principally right for the government to manipulate emotions in this manner?
If not, what sort of mandatory warning labels, if any, should tobacco products feature?
 
As much as I would like to think it would deter smokers, I don't think it will. People will do things against all rational sense.
 
No. As Dennis Leary once said (I'm paraphrasing), you could put cigarettes in a black box with a skull and crossbones on it and people will still buy it.

People smoke despite being fully aware of the risks.
 
They've been doing this here for over a decade. It doesn't work - people just buy a reusable 'sleeve' to place over their cigarette packs. Personally I just ignored them.

Of course, now that I'm all grown up and responsible I've quit smoking.. cigarettes.. :p
 
I'm a pretty light smoker. Roughly a carton a year (though I stop for 5 months over winter). I've long since stopped noticing the warnings.
 
We had those for years - no one cared.
Besides, if you are affected by some pics on the packs then you don't deserve to smoke. :D
Wait, cigarettes are bad for me? Why have I not been told of this until now?
Inorite
 
In Australia, it's been like that for ages. The government is now moving towards plain packaging and labelling (so all packets look the same, brand names are in a standard font, etc.). These policies are put in place because they work. It's telling that tobacco companies are opposed to such measures.
 
In Australia, it's been like that for ages. The government is now moving towards plain packaging and labelling (so all packets look the same, brand names are in a standard font, etc.). These policies are put in place because they work. It's telling that tobacco companies are opposed to such measures.
"Telling" in what sense? Do bottles of alcohol show livers with cirrhosis? Do chocolate bars show people that have died of heart disease? Before buying a car, do you have to look at pictures of mangled bodies?
 
"Telling" in what sense?

If a tobacco company or lobby group is opposing a change to the presentation of cigarettes, then it would seem a good bet that it's going to reduce sales. Why would they oppose it if it were not effective?

There are studies to prove that pictorial warnings have been effective when implemented (my internet's being pissy so I can't actually open the studies and post quotes, but I can link to somewhere that uses them as footnotes (26-29 are what you'd be looking for, I think)!)
 
"Telling" in what sense? Do bottles of alcohol show livers with cirrhosis? Do chocolate bars show people that have died of heart disease? Before buying a car, do you have to look at pictures of mangled bodies?

There is a clear distinction between alcohol, chocolate and cars on one hand, and cigarettes on the other. ONLY cigarettes are always harmful, the other products can be totally harm-free, even good, if handled correctly. Confalting the two groups, potentially dangerous and always dangerous, has been a tobacco industry lie for a long time.

And yes, looking at mangled bodies from car crashes makes people buckle up, as the ADAC (German Automobile club) found when they had billboards with such images set up in the 70s.
 
There is a clear distinction between alcohol, chocolate and cars on one hand, and cigarettes on the other. ONLY cigarettes are always harmful, the other products can be totally harm-free, even good, if handled correctly. Confalting the two groups, potentially dangerous and always dangerous, has been a tobacco industry lie for a long time.
I want to see some piece of scientific work that says tobacco is always harmful. Over the course of my life, I've probably smoked about two dozen cigarettes. What harm did I do to my body, and what are my odds of contracting lung cancer?
 
I want to see some piece of scientific work that says tobacco is always harmful. Over the course of my life, I've probably smoked about two dozen cigarettes. What harm did I do to my body, and what are my odds of contracting lung cancer?

Your chance of caner (not only lung) has increased a bit. Not much, because you didn't smoke much, but it did increase with the very first cigarette. It takes only one mutant cell, after all.......

And you don't need scientific evidence, all you need is a brain. Did the first time you sat in a car make you cough? Your first piece of chocolate? no?

There is a reason that smoke makes us cough, and that it takes smokers a while to get used to it: smoke irritates your bronchi. That is harmful.

You seem to suggest that there is a magic number of cigs one can smoke per time that is harmless, and then one more and BOOM it is a problem - any reason for that claim?
 
I want to see some piece of scientific work that says tobacco is always harmful. Over the course of my life, I've probably smoked about two dozen cigarettes. What harm did I do to my body, and what are my odds of contracting lung cancer?

Your chance of caner (not only lung) has increased a bit. Not much, because you didn't smoke much, but it did increase with the very first cigarette. It takes only one mutant cell, after all.......

And you don't need scientific evidence, all you need is a brain. Did the first time you sat in a car make you cough? Your first piece of chocolate? no?

There is a reason that smoke makes us cough, and that it takes smokers a while to get used to it: smoke irritates your bronchi. That is harmful.

You seem to suggest that there is a magic number of cigs one can smoke per time that is harmless, and then one more and BOOM it is a problem - any reason for that claim?

Like Carlos said...

There are any number of studies that prove tobacco smoking (not just cigarettes!) is harmful. The effect is cumulative, so it is only logical that your very few smoked cigarettes also only did a very small amount of damage to your body. Since the body also has a (limited) ability to repair the damage from poisons, those 2 dozen cigarettes probably haven't done you any lasting harm - which is not the same thing as saying they weren't harmful.

It is an underhanded tactic of the cigarette lobby to try to equate cigarette smoking with use of other substances which can, if abused, also have negative health effects. Cigarettes always damage your health, though, as should be obvious, a small amount has a proportionately small effect, which the body may be able to take in stride. Chocolate, on the contrary, has positive effects, though the sugar it is packaged with (not the chocolate itself!) can obviously be harmful if too much is eaten. Likewise, alcohol has been shown to even have positive health effects if taken regularly in small amounts (good for the arteries), though it definitely can cause harm in excess.

Edit: oh, and on topic, I'm afraid gory pictures won't have much lasting effect. Smokers already know these things and I'm sure they can ignore the pictures, too.
 
Your chance of caner (not only lung) has increased a bit. Not much, because you didn't smoke much, but it did increase with the very first cigarette. It takes only one mutant cell, after all.......


Actually his chance of cancer increased by such a small amount the the medical and scientific community consider it insignificant. Like most things in life it is how much did you use, not if you did.
 
Back
Top Bottom