Hide This

FREEHER HealthToolkit

HER Health Toolkit

Sign up for EmpowHER updates and you'll receive our
FREE HER Health Toolkit

Lung Cancer

Get Email Updates

Lung Cancer Guide

Maryann Gromisch RN Guide

Have a question? We're here to help. Ask the Community.

ASK

Health Newsletter

Receive the latest and greatest in women's health and wellness from EmpowHER - for free!

Cigarettes Need Bigger, Bolder Warning Labels--With Pictures, says WHO

 
Rate This

Medical News Report: Larger warning labels with graphic images showing the health hazards of smoking should be the new international standard for cigarette packaging, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). May 31 is “World No Tobacco Day” and will kick off the annual Tobacco Free Initiative campaign, sponsored by WHO.

This year’s theme focuses on tobacco health warnings to better “tell the truth about the deadly product within,” states the WHO. “Tobacco package health warnings that include images are a particularly powerful and cost-effective vehicle for communicating health risks.”

Graphic pictures with bold statements “engage audiences on an emotional level more effectively than text-only warnings and are therefore more likely to motivate behavioral change, “ according to a report by the WHO. Such labels can help communicate health information to less literate populations worldwide, they add.

The WHO recommends very large labels, covering at least half the cigarette package, and on all faces of the container. Labels should be changed often to keep the message fresh and attract interest. The WHO insists that all tobacco products should carry warning labels, not just cigarette packages.

Warning labels in the United States have not changed since 1984 and appear as inconspicuous small black and white print on the side of cigarette packs. Canada, Australia and several European countries have adopted the new label format and have shown that they are effective in discouraging smoking and increasing awareness of the health effects of tobacco use. The American Heart Association has come out with strong support for label changes in the United States.

For more information about World No Tobacco Day and health warnings on tobacco products, click on the following links.

Article Links:
WHO, “World No Tobacco Day, 31 May 2009,”
http://www.who.int/tobacco/wntd/2009/en/index.html

WHO, “How to Make Warnings Most Effective,”
http://www.who.int/tobacco/resources/publications/wntd/2009/materials/wn...

Related EmpowHer Links:
“Smoking Packs a Tougher Wallop for Women,”

Add a Comment10 Comments

EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

As in all cases against Tobacco, the proof of harm is all circumstantial and no positive proof is ever presented. As in the comment above which mentions SHS as being a health threat in the link provided. Not one person has been proven to have died due to SHS and Smoking is only one of dozens of possible causes. It is impossible for Epidemiology to pinpoint any single cause and that is the specific reason it is used. Studies find the predetermined cause or funding will be withdrawn. Without funding no studies would be done and this is the reason fraud can be found in at least 29% of all studies.
Even the MSA agreement found no positive proof. Tobacco companies settled to stop suits and passed the cost to consumers. Fraud was a definite possibility and is still being investigated. Politically correctness has more to do with how a case is judged than proof.
One thing is certain, when it comes to lying about the Health effects Tobacco Products the so-called Health Departments, ACS, ALA, NCI and the rest of the agencies will be Politically correct and funded by the Pharmaceuticals that sell NRT;'S.
See below.

The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

"This refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of anti smoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science."

This one of the best in-depth studies of how studies are done and their conclusions are reached. To say the least, this will open eyes to the truth of Smoking and Second Hand Smoke. It is long but more than worth the time. The conclusions will surprise all who finish it.

May 27, 2009 - 9:51am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Here is information on another courtroom loss for Big Tobacco: http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/6315#more-6315

May 27, 2009 - 12:37am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Who is going to put a big bold warning label on WHO, RWJF aka J&J who funds anti smoking and profits from their own nicotine and WHO is not paying attention?

The ACS, ALA, AHA needs a warning so big they will have to drag it, anti smoking is a danger to society

May 26, 2009 - 9:58am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

WHO, come on now, do not insult our intelligence!

I wouldn't dare. You do it well enough without help. Apparently you have researched information only on ACS/RWJF approved sites or you have had too much ACS Kool-Aid. I drank it before I started researching SHS in 1998. I also noticed that anyone who disagrees with Tobacco Control are called names or vilified because Anti's have nothing but Lies to fall back on. All diseases blamed on Tobacco are on the increase, while at the same time Tobacco use has fallen from 54% to less than 24%. Correlation does not prove causation. If the true numbers are used the inescapable fact is, as Tobacco use goes down disease goes up. Not one person has been proven to have died from SHS/ETS, period.

May 26, 2009 - 9:41am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

WHO, come on now, do not insult our intelligence! Do you really think this will make a difference one way or the other! This actually might increase the sale of products like invisismoke or even cigarette cases!

May 26, 2009 - 9:26am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

I get no funding from any source. I just like to spread the truth and this seems to be the only way. Major Media will not print the truth.

The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

"This refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of anti smoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science."

This one of the best in-depth studies of how studies are done and their conclusions are reached. To say the least, this will open eyes to the truth of Smoking and Second Hand Smoke. It is long but more than worth the time. The conclusions will surprise all who finish it.

May 26, 2009 - 6:39am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

All things considered, including that the RWJF (pharma foundation) supplies the funds for smoking bans with grants to the American Cancer Society, it seems the industry that makes the no-smoke products (pharma) has the WHO in its pocket. 'To thine own self be true.'

May 25, 2009 - 11:18pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Nice to see big tobacco's back spreading their BS, same as they've done for the last 50 years. The _hate_ graphic warning labels.

May 25, 2009 - 11:15pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

The tobacco prevention groups have become so perverted that anything the WHO does at this point is just overkill.

May 25, 2009 - 6:33pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Will the WHO put similar warnings on their smoking cessation products which cause oral cancer, diabetes, tooth loss, hair loss and suicide? Will the WHO let people know that smoking cessation products are 98.6 % inneffective?

May 25, 2009 - 6:01pm
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy

Improved

1668 Health

Changed

622 Lives

Saved

469 Lives
0 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More

Take Our Featured Health Poll

Do your teens have their own cellphones?:
View Results