Intended for healthcare professionals

Letters Plain packaging

Switch to large pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2084 (Published 10 April 2013) Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2084

This article has a correction. Please see:

  1. George Thomson, associate professor (research)1,
  2. Nick Wilson, associate professor1,
  3. Ninya Maubach, research fellow1
  1. 1Department of Public Health, Te Tari Hauora Tumatanui, University of Otago, Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand
  1. george.thomson{at}otago.ac.nz

The New Zealand government’s announcement that it will bring in legislation for plain cigarette packs is a welcome public health development.1 2 However, the fine print says that the government will wait to see what happens with Australia’s legal cases, so enactment of this legislation might be delayed.3

The legal and arbitration processes surrounding Australia’s plain packs legislation may take years to be finalised. In one process (with Philip Morris), the first arbitration hearing has been moved to February 2014.4 There are also cases in which Ukraine, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic are using World Trade Organization dispute panel procedures, and which have only started the procedural stages.5

In the meantime, New Zealand has a pictorial health warning on the front of 30% of packs, compared with 75% for Australia, Canada, and Brunei and 80% for Uruguay and Sri Lanka.6 Thailand will have 85%.7

Governments that, unlike Australia, are timid about the litigation risks of plain packs could still adopt large front of pack warnings now. For New Zealand, this could be done by a change of regulations that would not require new legislation. If the six countries above can have large warnings (and Uruguay can refuse to bow to Philip Morris litigation about their warnings) why can’t others?

Notes

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2084

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

View Abstract