» Articles » PMID: 28416710

Compliance with Uruguay's Single Presentation Requirement

Overview
Journal Tob Control
Specialty Psychiatry
Date 2017 Apr 19
PMID 28416710
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Tobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family.

Methods: An existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a 'starting hub' was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types.

Results: Unique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62%) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin).

Conclusion: Overall, compliance with Uruguay's single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type.

Citing Articles

The Effects of Filter Ventilation and Expanded Tobacco on the Tar, Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide Yields from Cigarettes Sold in Australia.

Winnall W, Haynes A, Klerx W, Bakker-t Hart I, Versluis C, Leijten N Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025; 22(1).

PMID: 39857503 PMC: 11764558. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph22010050.


Feminine Appeals on Cigarette Packs Sold in 14 Countries.

Czaplicki L, Welding K, Cohen J, Smith K Int J Public Health. 2021; 66:1604027.

PMID: 34475810 PMC: 8406490. DOI: 10.3389/ijph.2021.1604027.


The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products.

Gruszczynski L, Melillo M Global Health. 2020; 16(1):81.

PMID: 32912239 PMC: 7488438. DOI: 10.1186/s12992-020-00596-x.

References
1.
Marti J, Sindelar J . Smaller Cigarette Pack as a Commitment to Smoke Less? Insights from Behavioral Economics. PLoS One. 2015; 10(9):e0137520. PMC: 4565702. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137520. View

2.
Freeman B, Chapman S, Rimmer M . The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products. Addiction. 2008; 103(4):580-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02145.x. View

3.
Greenland S . The Australian experience following plain packaging: the impact on tobacco branding. Addiction. 2016; 111(12):2248-2258. DOI: 10.1111/add.13536. View

4.
Scollo M, Occleston J, Bayly M, Lindorff K, Wakefield M . Tobacco product developments coinciding with the implementation of plain packaging in Australia. Tob Control. 2014; 24(e1):e116-22. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051509. View

5.
Hoek J, Gendall P, Eckert C, Kemper J, Louviere J . Effects of brand variants on smokers' choice behaviours and risk perceptions. Tob Control. 2015; 25(2):160-5. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052094. View