Moving in the right direction: tobacco packaging and labeling in the Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the adoption of tobacco packaging and labeling policies based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)'s Article 11 guidelines, in the WHO Region of the Americas (AMRO). Methods: We reviewed tobacco control laws in AMRO from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' Tobacco Control Laws database. We analyzed four sub-policy areas for smoked and smokeless tobacco products: 1) health warning labels (HWLs), 2) constituents and emissions (C&Es), 3) misleading tobacco packaging and labeling, and 4) standardized "plain" packaging. Results: Of 35 countries in AMRO, 31 have tobacco packaging and labeling laws. Twenty-six countries require pictorial HWLs, 24 require warnings printed on at least 50% of the front and back of the packs, and 24 rotate a single or multiple (from 2 to 16) warnings within a specified period (from 5 up to 24 months). Only 21 countries require descriptive messages on toxic C&Es information. Twenty-seven countries ban brand descriptors with references to implied harm reduction (e.g., "light"), 24 ban figures, colors, and other signs, but only 13 prohibit emission yields printed on the packs. Only Canada and Uruguay have adopted standardized tobacco packaging while Uruguay also requires a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family. Conclusion: Many countries in AMRO have made good progress in adopting multiple, rotating, large pictorial HWLs and banning misleading brand descriptors. However, there needs to be greater attention on other tobacco packaging and labeling provisions with a focus on implementing standardized tobacco packaging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".