MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758959924 · doi:10.2471/blt.16.190082

Policy options for extending standardized tobacco packaging

2017· article· en· W2758959924 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janet Hoek, Philip Gendall

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPackaging and labelingEnvironmental healthMedicineTobacco industryTobacco useMarketingPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoking is a public health problem that will cause 1 billion deaths in the 21st century, if current smoking patterns persist. (1) Tobacco companies' aggressive marketing has fostered tobacco use by creating brands and linking these to attributes and identities that users and susceptible non-users value. Although many countries now restrict traditional marketing media, tobacco companies have developed increasingly creative strategies to encourage experimentation with tobacco among non-users and deter quitting among users. Packaging has provided an important and until recently, largely unregulated, conduit for these marketing messages and has communicated appealing imagery to young people while using known and familiar brand symbols to reassure existing tobacco users. The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) (2) obliges Parties to address tobacco packaging. Implementation guidelines for Articles II (3) and 13 (4) include consideration of plain packaging and recognize the myriad ways in which tobacco companies have used packaging to promote tobacco use. In response, Australia, France, Georgia, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have either introduced or will soon be introducing standardized or plain packaging. Hungary, Romania, Slovenia and Thailand have already passed legislation to introduce plain packaging, and several other countries (including Belgium, Canada, Chile, Singapore and Sri Lanka, among others) are formally considering this policy. Plain packaging replaces the attractive brand livery displayed on tobacco packs with an aversive colour and standardized text, and is typically combined with larger pictorial warning labels, if these are not already in place. The policy recognizes that on-pack brand imagery has positioned tobacco use as an aspirational behaviour and fostered uptake among young people, (5) transforming tobacco packages from attractive display items to highly unappealing articles. Evidence from Australia shows standardized packaging and larger pictorial warning labels have reduced smokings appeal among young people, (6) increased demand for cessation support and decreased smoking prevalence. (8) Evaluations confirm predictions from experimental and other studies used to support the introduction of this policy. (8) Despite the intuitive logic of using packaging to deter rather than facilitate experimentation with tobacco products, other countries have been cautious in following Australia's approach. The time taken for plain packaging to be more widely adopted and implemented in other countries has caused some frustration among public health researchers and advocates. Nevertheless, this time lag has also provided an opportunity to examine how tobacco companies have reacted to Australia's new policy environment, and to consider whether and where Australian legislation could be extended. We suggest that countries planning to introduce standardized packaging have an opportunity to innovate in at least four ways: (i) restricting or banning brand variant names; (ii) developing larger and more salient onpack warnings; (iii) requiring tobacco products themselves to use dissuasive colours; and (iv) using packaging to create cessation portals that direct tobacco users to quit support. First, the introduction of standardized packaging in Australia saw a rapid increase in brand variant names (or descriptors) such as Marlboro Silver Fine Scent, Winfield Optimum Crush Sky and Peter Stuyvesant New York Blend. (9) These variant names attempt to recreate connotations formerly aroused by visual brand imagery and aim to reassure smokers, deter quitting and potentially attract new users. Recent work suggests the more descriptors used, the more attractive a pack appears. (10) Variants potentially mislead users by linking tobacco to appealing attributes or by minimizing the harm caused by tobacco use and serve no purpose other than to create marketing appeals. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the World Health OrganizationSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207