Skip to main content

Plain packaging makes cigarettes less appealing and increases urgency to quit smoking

While the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, is mired in controversy over lobbying and tobacco, having ducked the intention to introduce plain packaging, new research shows that plain, unbranded, packaging works. 

Plain packaging for cigarettes seems to make tobacco less appealing and increases the urgency to quit smoking, suggest early findings from Australia, published in the online journal BMJ Open.

Australia formally introduced plain brown packaging, accompanied by graphic health warnings taking up three quarters of the front of the pack, for all tobacco products six months ago.  So far, it is the only country in the world to have done so.

The researchers wanted to find out what effects the policy was having in the early stages, and whether it helped curb the appeal of tobacco, emphasise its harms, and encourages quitting among smokers.

They therefore interviewed 536 cigarette smokers in the Australian state of Victoria during November 2012 when plain packs were already available, in the run-up to, and immediately after, implementation of the legislation requiring all tobacco sold at retail outlets to be contained in plain packs.

The interviewees were all taking part in the annual phone Victorian Smoking and Health Survey, which is a representative survey of adults in the state.

Almost three out of four (72.3%) were smoking cigarettes from plain packs while the remainder (27.7%) were still using branded packs with smaller health warnings.

The smokers were asked whether they were as satisfied with their cigarettes as they were a year ago, and whether they felt the quality was the same. They were also asked how often they thought about the harms of smoking and about quitting smoking, and if they approved of the plain pack policy. And they were asked if they thought the harms of smoking had been exaggerated.

The results indicated that perception of exaggerated tobacco harm or the frequency with which smokers thought about the damage cigarettes might be doing to them differed little between the two groups. But plain pack smokers were 51% more likely to back the plain pack policy than were brand pack smokers.

And compared with smokers still using brand packs, the plain pack smokers were 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were poorer quality than a year ago. And they were 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying.

They were also 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day during the previous week and to rate quitting as a higher priority in their lives than were smokers using brand packs.

As the date for the legislation drew nearer, and more of the sample were smoking from plain packs, the responses of those smoking brand packs more closely matched those of plain pack smokers in terms of smoking’s appeal.

This could simply reflect the reduced likelihood of being able to smoke from a brand pack or “social contagion,” suggest the authors.

But, they conclude: “The finding that smokers smoking from a plain pack evidenced more frequent thought about, and priority for quitting, than branded pack smokers is important, since frequency of thoughts about quitting has strong predictive validity in prospective studies for actually making a quit attempt.”

And they add: “Overall, the introductory effects we observed are consistent with the broad objectives of the plain packaging legislation. We await further research to examine more durable effects on smokers and any effects on youth.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno