Canadian tobacco packaging labels and warnings for

2022-05-18
  • Detail

The World Health Organization Framework Convention on tobacco control (FCTC) calls for the vigorous improvement of tobacco warnings around the world, which reflects the increasing attention to tobacco packaging labels or forms of warnings. Due to the fact that the greatly improved warning has now appeared on the retail shelves of the EU, and other countries (such as Malaysia) have announced plans to use the improved warning model of Canada or Brazil, people have increased their attention to the problem that the inner sample hole is a 1:7 conical surface

the higher concerns raised by the procedures of the Framework Convention on tobacco control and the fact that the Convention encourages parties to implement more effective warnings raise some important issues. Why are eye-catching and bold warnings better? What kind of information is more effective? What strategies may the tobacco industry decide to adopt to undermine measures that may reduce its sales

Canada was one of the first countries to develop and use innovative labels for tobacco products. The original intention of this national report on warnings is to help other countries carrying out similar reforms in time. Although the Canadian aphorism is well known in some aspects, especially the images it uses, the debate and analysis that led Canada to the front in this field are little known. Due to the deep understanding of the misinformation and deception of the tobacco epidemic, health propaganda and education words gradually tend to be large-scale, clear and image

the tobacco epidemic has been accurately described as an unprecedented global disaster: without extraordinary public health interventions, tobacco products will kill 500 million people in the existing population. In other words, even if future generations reject products from the tobacco industry, such products will still kill 10 times the number of civilians and soldiers killed in World War II

in Canada, about 45000 smokers die from the tobacco epidemic every year. In fact, Health Canada estimates that tobacco manufacturers' products will cause early death of 3 million of the country's 32 million people. Such a high projected mortality rate requires very public health interventions. For major epidemics caused by viruses or bacteria, the government has the right to provide residents with clear and comprehensive information on the severity of these diseases and how to avoid them; For tobacco, the government has the same. However, tobacco is unique in major epidemics. It has its own public relations department, that is, the tobacco industry. In order to have a vested interest, the tobacco industry should let consumers know as little as possible about the serious harm of tobacco addiction to health

although the detailed rules of consumer protection laws in various countries are different in order to avoid severe vibration and affect the accuracy of the experimental machine, there is a broad consensus on the general principle, that is, take the United Nations consumer protection guidelines as an example. The guidelines recognize the rights of consumers to protect them from health and safety hazards in the market and to receive "sufficient information to ensure that they make informed choices", including dangerous choices. Historically, the sale of tobacco products has seriously violated these principles. Consumers are exposed to great dangers: the mortality rate of long-term tobacco users is 50%, and they do not get the right information

according to Canada's unwritten law, tobacco manufacturers have long warned consumers about the hazards associated with their products. This requires tobacco companies to warn about the truth of the harm (for example, more than 20 debilitating or advanced diseases) and the severity of the risk (for example, about 85% of lung cancer today usually dies within two years). The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that all manufacturers have the following requirements: once they admit that they have made a warning, the warning must be correct. The warning should be clear and easy to understand, and inform the user of the nature and degree of hazard in an appropriate way; Warning words should reflect the seriousness of potential hazards, and should not use warnings of compromise or opposite significance due to the indirect and taboo activities of the tobacco manufacturing industry. Canada's consumer law is clear about the nature of the two dangers. The third principle of consumer protection is that the way of warning depends on the consumer (or expected consumer). For example, for products designed for the blind, even if the manufacturer indicates the harm of the product on the goods, it cannot escape. In most cases, consumer protection laws strive to protect all types of vulnerable groups. Children are vulnerable to deceptive or exaggerated advertising words. They usually can't legally sign more important agreements because they can't accurately judge what their best interests are. Similarly, those suffering from advanced diseases are hurt by "magical curative effect" advertisements

tobacco sales widely face two similar groups: children/teenagers (if the tobacco industry wants to replace consumers who die or quit smoking, they will certainly tempt children/teenagers to smoke.) And addicted adults. The vulnerability of adolescents is obvious: society has good reasons not to expect them to make a wise choice between recent (even symbolic) satisfaction (such as social recognition and identity) and the prospect of tragic consequences decades later (such as middle-aged death). It is also unrealistic to expect boring scientific information to compete with the moving influence of well-designed images

addicted smokers are vulnerable to conflicting misinformation: it's hard for them to believe one thing when they do the opposite. In particular, smokers who cannot physically quit his or her next cigarette suspect that information about health hazards is highly tendentious, but believe in the false arguments commonly put forward by the tobacco industry (such as "it has not been proved that smoking can lead to cancer" and "smoking addiction feels like drinking soda addiction", etc.)

the need to cut off misleading and communicate effectively with children and adolescents helps explain why Canada's tobacco control policy has changed from a non recurrent educational campaign to the current form of big picture warnings after experiencing printed information on packaging. In addition, to reduce misinformation, the new health information system includes helping smokers who want to quit smoking: obviously, if you feel hopeful about quitting smoking, you can easily accept health information

in Canada, the debate over warnings dates back almost 30 years. After a week of negotiations, the tobacco industry drew up an absurd voluntary warning, which came into force from 1975 to 1988 ("advice of the Ministry of health and welfare: health hazards increase with the amount of smoking. Avoid inhalation"), but this does not deny the tobacco industry's civil tort or civil law obligations during this period. It is clear that a voluntary agreement cannot eliminate the long-standing civil liability of the tobacco industry to its consumers. If the current form of Canadian warnings is inappropriate, Canada's new form of warnings will not give complete shelter to the tobacco industry. According to Chapter 16 of the Canadian tobacco act on warnings, this does not affect the obligation of a manufacturer or retailer in civil law, parliamentary law or provincial legislation to warn consumers that the use of tobacco products or the smoke emitted by tobacco products can cause health hazards and affect health

Canada's tobacco legislation retains the warning obligation of civil law and has more legal effect than the obligation stipulated in the new warning provisions. This chapter is about the tobacco industry's frequent success in evading the law ("parliamentary shield") under the pretext of using federal labeling laws in the United States Partial response to the situation. US courts have ruled that US warnings passed by Congress protect manufacturers from the burden of providing more meaningful warnings than those being used. The argument for success is that if Parliament asks for stronger warnings, Parliament will make strong warnings

therefore, although the Canadian warning now works, tobacco manufacturers have long been subject to civil law warnings, but they ignore this. In 2002, judge Andr é Denis decided to deny tobacco manufacturers' accusations that the tobacco act and the form of Canada's tobacco packaging warnings were unconstitutional. He used strong language to condemn manufacturers: "because tobacco companies still fail to fulfill their in this regard, although they understand the harm of tobacco... The tobacco industry knows this, but they say nothing (10), so they must be made to implement this."

therefore, without proper warning for decades, the government forced the tobacco industry to implement the world's unprecedented first generation of tobacco warnings in 1994

Low temperature equipment
Low temperature
Material Torsion
torsion testing machine

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI