Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/27574
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Plain packaging: Legislative differences in Australia, France, the UK, New Zealand and Norway, and options for strengthening regulations
Author(s): Moodie, Crawford
Hoek, Janet
Scheffels, Janne
Gallopel-Morvan, Karine
Lindorff, Kylie
Contact Email: c.s.moodie@stir.ac.uk
Issue Date: Sep-2019
Citation: Moodie C, Hoek J, Scheffels J, Gallopel-Morvan K & Lindorff K (2019) Plain packaging: Legislative differences in Australia, France, the UK, New Zealand and Norway, and options for strengthening regulations. Tobacco Control, 28 (5), pp. 485-492. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054483
Abstract: Introduction By July 2018, five countries (Australia, France, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway) had fully implemented plain (standardised) packaging. Methods Using government documents, we reviewed the key legislative differences between these five countries to identify best practice measures and potential lacuna. We then discuss how governments planning to introduce plain packaging could strengthen their legislation. Results Differences between countries include the terminology used (either ‘plain’, ‘standardised’, or ‘plain and standardised’), products covered, and transition times (ranging from two to twelve months). Myriad differences exist with respect to the packaging, including the dimensions (explicitly stated for height, width and depth vs minimum dimensions for the health warnings only), structure (straight-edged flip-top packs vs straight, rounded and bevelled-edged flip-top packs and shoulder boxes) and size (minimum number of cigarettes and weight of tobacco vs fixed amounts), and warning content (e.g. inclusion of a stop-smoking web address and/or quitline displayed on warnings on one or both principal display areas). Future options that merit further analysis include banning colour descriptors in brand and variant names, allowing pack inserts promoting cessation, and permitting cigarettes that are designed to be dissuasive. Conclusions Plain packaging legislation and regulations are divergent. Countries moving towards plain packaging should consider incorporating the strengths of existing policies and review opportunities for extending these. While plain packaging represents a milestone in tobacco control policy, future legislation need not simply reflect the past but could set new benchmarks to maximise the potential benefits of this policy.
DOI Link: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054483
Rights: This article has been accepted for publication in Tobacco Control following peer review. The definitive copyedited, typeset version Moodie C, Hoek J, Scheffels J, et alPlain packaging: legislative differences in Australia, France, the UK, New Zealand and Norway, and options for strengthening regulations, Tobacco Control 2019;28:485-492 is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054483

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Moodie-etal-TobaccoControl-2019.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version340.47 kBAdobe PDFView/Open



This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.