International cigarette labelling practices
International cigarette labelling practices
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/tc.8.4.368
复制
发表时间：
1999-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Lurie, P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aftab, M;Kolben, D;Lurie, P
描述国际香烟包装警示法律。设计-横断面研究。警示-GLOBALink（www.example.com）的成员，GLOBALink（www.globalink.org）是一个为烟草活动家提供的互联网列表服务器，其成员来自56个国家，他们被要求提供有关其国家香烟警示要求的具体信息。主要结果测量-特定警示标签的存在，总体内容评分（基于0-10级，每个提到的特定警示一个点），警示标签的大小，警示标签的位置。结果-45个国家（80%）作出了答复; 40个国家有强制性标签要求，3个国家与工业界有自愿协议，2个国家没有要求。总的来说，美国公司在国外的活动并不超过当地法律的要求。发展中国家的平均满意度得分为1.6，而发达国家为5.0（p = 0.0003）。42%的国家要么没有警告要求，要么只有非常笼统的健康警告。最常见的警告是心脏病（49%的国家），最不常见的是成瘾（14%）。所有警告在发达国家比在发展中国家更为普遍。发达国家的平均发病率比发展中国家高27%（p = 0.325）。73%的标签在发展中国家只出现在包装的一面，而78%的标签在发达国家出现在前面和后面（p = 0.003）。结论，在几乎每一个方面测量，居民在发展中国家收到劣质的信息，吸烟的危害比发达国家的居民。进口国和出口国应颁布法律，确保在标签法不同的情况下，要求公司提供更全面的标签。
Objective-To describe international cigarette pack warning laws.Design-Cross-sectional study.Participants-Members of GLOBALink (www.globalink.org), an internet listserve for tobacco activists with members in 56 countries, who were asked to provide specific information on cigarette warning requirements in their countries.Main outcome measures-Presence of specific warning labels, overall content score (based on a 0-10 scale with a point for each specific warning mentioned), size of warning label, location of warning label. Results-Forty-five countries (80%) responded; 40 had mandatory labelling requirements, three had voluntary agreements with the industry and two had no requirements. In general, American companies did no more in foreign countries than required by local law. The average developing country content score was 1.6, compared with 5.0 in developed countries (p = 0.0003). Forty-two per cent of countries either had no warning requirement or had only a very general health warning. The most common warning was for heart disease (49% of countries) and the least common was for addiction (14%). All warnings were more common in developed than developing countries. Warnings in developed country were on average 27% larger than those in developing countries (p = 0.325). Seventy-three per cent of labels in developing countries appeared only on the side of the pack, whereas 78% of labels in developed countries appeared on the front and back (p = 0.003).Conclusions-In almost every respect measured, residents in developing countries are receiving inferior information about the hazards of smoking than residents of developed countries. Laws should be promulgated in importing and exporting countries to ensure that, where their labelling laws differ, companies would be required to provide the more comprehensive labelling.