DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Evidence on the Effect of Point-Of-Sale Display Bans on Smoking Prevalence Yanyun He,1 Ce Shang,2 Jidong Huang,3 Kai-Wen Cheng,1,2 Frank J Chaloupka1,2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Global Evidence on the Effect of Point-Of-Sale Display Bans on Smoking Prevalence Yanyun He,1 Ce Shang,2 Jidong Huang,3 Kai-Wen Cheng,1,2 Frank J Chaloupka1,2 Research paper Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053996 on 13 January 2018. Downloaded from Global evidence on the effect of point-of-sale display bans on smoking prevalence Yanyun He,1 Ce Shang,2 Jidong Huang,3 Kai-Wen Cheng,1,2 Frank J Chaloupka1,2 1University of Illinois, Chicago, ABStract countries have implemented POS display bans, Illinois, USA Background Since Iceland became the first country to including Canada (Manitoba became the first prov- 2Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois, impose a ban on point-of-sale (POS) tobacco product ince to ban POS displays on January 2004, and as Chicago, Illinois, USA displays in 2001, 20 countries have implemented POS of January 2010, all provinces had followed suit), 3School of Public Health, display bans as of 2016. This study examined the effect Thailand (September 2005), Belarus (January 2008), Tobacco Center of Regulatory that POS display bans have on smoking prevalence. Ireland (July 2009), Australia (the first jurisdiction, Science, Georgia State Methods Data were sourced from Euromonitor the Australian Capital Territory, implemented in University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA International and the WHO MPOWER package for December 2009; and as of January 2012 all states 2007–2014 from 77 countries worldwide. generalised and territories had a ban) and Norway (January Correspondence to linear models with country and year fixed effects were 2010). In countries where POS display bans came Dr Ce Shang, Institute for Health estimated to analyse the effect of POS display bans on into force, cigarettes may not be displayed in-store Research and Policy, University smoking prevalence. and consequently consumers are not permitted to of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60002, Results Having a POS display ban reduced overall adult browse or examine the cigarette brands/products on USA; cshang@ uic. edu daily smoking, male smoking and female smoking by offer prior to purchase. Received 14 August 2017 about 7%, 6% and 9%, respectively. To date, 20 countries have implemented POS Revised 29 November 2017 Conclusions Having a POS display ban is likely to display bans (online supplementary appendix). Accepted 7 December 2017 reduce smoking prevalence and generate public health However, the limited number of studies exam- Published Online First 13 January 2018 benefits. ining the effect of POS display bans on smoking behaviours has provided mixed results. In Canada and Iceland where POS display bans have been implemented, a decrease in youth and adult 8 9 INTRODUCTION smoking prevalence was observed. The bans may copyright. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco have contributed to these reductions. However, Control (WHO FCTC), a treaty with 181 parties without assessing other changes in the tobacco worldwide, calls for comprehensive restrictions on control environment, such as the implementation tobacco marketing, promotion and sponsorship.1 of other tobacco control strategies, the two existing As countries have implemented regulations banning observational studies could not determine conclu- advertising and promotion of tobacco products sively whether POS display bans reduced smoking. in traditional media outlets such as television, Shang et al examined the association between POS radio and outdoor billboards, tobacco companies advertising restrictions and smoking behaviours increasingly market their products to customers at among youth using data from the Global Youth http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ the point of sale (POS). POS displays (eg, product Tobacco Survey in 130 countries between 2007 and 10 11 placement, brand exhibition and price discounts) 2011. A POS advertising ban was significantly have become an important competitive marketing associated with reduced experimental smoking and strategy.2 In the USA, tobacco industry expendi- smoking participation among youth. tures on cigarette POS advertising and promotion Several studies examined the effect of POS increased from $76 million in 2011 to $238 million displays on purchasing behaviours or the effect of in 2014.3 4 In Chile, the tobacco industry invests in POS display bans on exposure to tobacco product making bigger and more attractive display cabinets marketing. Wakefield et al found that 31% of for their products to attract shoppers and prompt smokers thought removal of POS displays would impulse purchases. For example, to support new help them quit.12 Carter et al and Clattenburg on 22 October 2018 by guest. Protected product launches and to better communicate with et al also found strong evidence that POS displays customers, small liquid-crystal display screens were prompted impulse buying of cigarettes and urges to installed in some stores.5 smoke and undermined quit attempts.7 13 Seeing tobacco products can stimulate the desire Li et al used longitudinal individual-level data to purchase and decrease thoughts about quitting. from the International Tobacco Control survey to POS displays are associated with greater odds compare the variability in POS marketing restric- of impulse purchasing and the urge to purchase tions in four Western countries: Australia and tobacco products.6 Another study found that a Canada, where POS display bans had been imple- small-to-moderate proportion of tobacco purchases mented, and the UK and the USA, where there were made on impulse, and approximately one-third were no such bans in place.14 They also examined of smokers agreed POS promotion made quitting the effect of POS marketing restrictions on adult smoking more difficult.7 smokers’ exposure to tobacco product marketing To cite: He Y, Shang C, Iceland became the first country to impose and their cigarette purchasing behaviours. In coun- Huang J, et al. Tob Control a ban on POS advertising and displays in 2001 tries where POS display bans were implemented, 2018;27:e98–e104. (online supplementary appendix). Since then, other smokers reported exposure to tobacco marketing e98 He Y, et al. Tob Control 2018;27:e98–e104. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053996 Research paper Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053996 on 13 January 2018. Downloaded from declined markedly. Smokers in countries without POS display 2015, the exposure measure was adjusted using the proportion bans were more likely to make unplanned purchases. A study in of cigarette sales in large stores among total sales revenues, Norway observed before and after implementation of the POS during the period when only large stores were subject to POS display ban in January 201015 found that compared with older display bans. The correlation between the provinces/states in people young people were more likely to be tempted by tobacco Australia and Canada who had the ban and the provinces/states products when seeing them in the shop, and therefore, found it who did not have the ban might affect the effect of the ban on more difficult to choose a brand or buy tobacco products after smoking participation. See online supplementary appendix for the ban was implemented. formula for the constructs of this exposure measure variable. In contrast, an Irish study found no significant short-term change in smoking prevalence among adults within the first year following the implementation of a POS display ban.16 Quinn Control variables for other policies et al examined the economic impact of the POS display ban on The WHO FCTC, one of the United Nations’ most widely cigarette sales in Ireland using aggregated actual sales data and embraced treaties, was adopted in May 2003 and came into found no statistically significant decline in cigarette pack sales force on February 2005. To support treaty implementation, following the implementation of the legislation.17 WHO developed the MPOWER package, focused on six effec- However, these existing studies either presented descriptive tive and cost-effective tobacco control measures: M (monitor statistics or estimated associations between POS display bans and tobacco use), P (protect people from smoke), O (offer help to quit), W (warn about the dangers of tobacco), E (enforce bans on smoking behaviours, and as a result, did not analyse the causal 19 20 impact of POS display bans on smoking. In addition, many coun- tobacco marketing) and R (raise taxes on tobacco). All WHO tries have implemented a comprehensive set of tobacco control member states were assessed based on their performance imple- policies, such as tax increases, smoke-free air laws and graphic menting each measure. The six MPOWER scores were catego- warning labels, as suggested by the WHO FCTC, which could be rised into four or five levels. For M, the score value ranges from potential confounders when estimating the effect of POS display 1 to 4: 1 represents no known data/no recent data/no national representative data, and 2–4 represent the weakest to the stron- bans on smoking. 21 POS display bans are likely to affect smoking behaviour by gest level of monitoring. For the other five policy dimensions cutting off an important communication channel with potential (POWER), the scores measure overall strength on a scale of 1–5: customers and providing a supportive environment for smokers 1 represents a lack of data (missing data), and 2–5 represent the to quit.18 However, to date, no studies in the peer-reviewed weakest to the strongest policies. Since the MPOWER scores literature have assessed the impact of POS display bans on adult were not reported, the scores in the prior years (2008, 2010 and 2012) were replaced using the scores in years 2009, 2011 smoking across multiple countries. Using aggregated coun- copyright. and 2013, assuming that no policy changes occurred. Following try-level longitudinal data from 77 countries in the world from 22 2007 to 2014, and a two-way fixed effects model, we analyse the previous literature, we constructed a composite score for each causal link between POS display bans and smoking prevalence, country and year by summing up each individual score and used accounting for the tobacco control environment and population it to account for tobacco control environment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ATG Vill ENG 210X297 0311.Qxd 8-03-2011 15:28 Pagina 1
    INTERVIEW Ad Rutten, Executive Vice President & COO, Schiphol Group and ACI EUROPE President AIRPORTS MEET KALLAS Industry challenges discussed BUDAPEST CHARTER Another step forward for SES AIRPORT ECONOMICS London event report CAGLIARI Airport Regional Airports Forum host Issue sponsored by: Spring 2011 www.aci-europe.org ATG_Vill_ENG_210x297_0311.qxd 8-03-2011 15:28 Pagina 1 AUTOGRILL OUR EXPERIENCE KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT concept design Moreno Gentili VILLORESI, AUTOSTRADA MI-VA (ARCH. ANGELO BIANCHETTI) 5300 food&beverage, retail and duty-free points of sale in airports, on motorways, in railway stations and city high streets in 37 countries worldwide. Airports Council International European Region 6 Square de Meeûs B-1000 Brussels Belgium CONTENTS Director General Olivier Jankovec SPRING 2011 Tel: +32 (0)2 552 09 72 Fax: +32 (0)2 513 26 42 e-mail: [email protected] Communications Manager Robert O'Meara Tel: +32 (0)2 552 09 82 OLIVIER Jankovec 5 Fax: +32 (0)2 502 56 37 DIRECTOR General, ACI EUROPE e-mail: [email protected] FROM FIRE-FIGHTING TO Senior Manager Membership and Commercial Services FUTURE-PROOFING Danielle Michel Tel: +32 (0)2 552 09 78 Fax: +32 (0)2 502 56 37 e-mail: [email protected] AD Rutten 7 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT & COO, SCHIPHOL GROUP AND ACI EUROPE PRESIDENT SCHIPHOL innovatinG TO ENSURE sustainable GROWTH Airports MEET Kallas 15 EC VICE PRESIDENT Kallas AND Magazine staff: EUROPE’S airports discuss 2010 AND THE FUTURE Publisher Daniel Coleman Editor Ross Falconer Assistant Editor Ryan Ghee BUDAPEST ATM CONFERENCE 18 Head Designer ‘BUDAPEST Charter’ supports Richard Jende SES implementation Designer Victoria Wilkinson Photography Grant Pritchard Sales Director Jenny Rayner Managing Director Aviation SECURITY 23 Paul J.
    [Show full text]
  • Out of Sight, out of Mind? Removal of Point-Of-Sale Tobacco Displays in Norway Janne Scheffels,1 Randi Lavik2
    Research paper Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050341 on 7 June 2012. Downloaded from Out of sight, out of mind? Removal of point-of-sale tobacco displays in Norway Janne Scheffels,1 Randi Lavik2 1Norwegian Institute for Alcohol ABSTRACT review concluded that the evidence that POS and Drug Research (SIRUS), Aim To evaluate retailer’s compliance and consumer’s advertising and displays increase susceptibility to Oslo, Norway 2 perceptions of and experiences with the point-of-sale smoking and uptake of smoking among youth is Norwegian Institute for 11 Consumer Research (SIFO), (POS) tobacco display ban in Norway, implemented 1 strong. In a retrospective study from Australia, Oslo, Norway January 2010. 25% of smokers said that they purchased cigarettes Methods Retailer compliance was measured using audit at least sometimes on impulse as a result of seeing Correspondence to surveys. Consumer’s perceptions of the ban were only cigarette displays and 33.9% of recent quitters Dr Janne Scheffels, Norwegian assessed in three web surveys: one conducted before said that they experienced an urge to buy cigarettes Institute for Alcohol and Drug 12 Research (SIRUS), PO Box 565, and two after implementation of the ban. The sample for as a result of seeing the retail cigarette displays. Sentrum, 0105 Oslo, Norway; each of these consisted of about 900 people aged Another Australian study based on immediate [email protected] 15e54 years and an extra sample of smokers and snus postpurchase interviews found that POS displays users. 10 focus group interviews with male and female influenced nearly four times as many unplanned as Received 25 November 2011 e < 13 Accepted 12 May 2012 daily, occasional and former smokers aged 16 50 years planned purchases (47% vs 12%, p 0.01).
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Ruinous Tobacco Display Ban: Economic and Public Health Lessons
    Canada's ruinous tobacco display ban: economic and public health lessons Patrick Basham IEA Discussion Paper No. 29 July 2010 Institute of Economic Affairs 2 Lord North Street London SW1P 3LB www.iea.org.uk IEA web publications are designed to promote discussion on economic issues and the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. Copyright remains with the author. If you would like to contact the author, in the first instance please contact [email protected]. As with all IEA publications, the views expressed in IEA web publications are those of the author and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff. Canada's ruinous tobacco display ban: economic and public health lessons Patrick Basham Introduction The critics of tobacco retail displays claim they help to initiate smoking in adolescents and thwart the efforts of smokers to stop smoking. Removing such displays, argue the proponents of display bans, will therefore reduce smoking initiation in the young and increase the likelihood of success of smokers trying to quit, while barely impacting the independent retail sector. This paper assesses the validity of these claims in the context of the international experience, especially in Canada, with display bans. Accordingly, this paper reviews the empirical evidence about the public health effectiveness and the economic impact of display bans in Canada. While the Canadian public health story is a depressing one, the paper also details what the display ban has done ‘successfully’ in Canada, namely driving the illegal market and decimating the independent retail sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Oh Snap! Countering Tobacco Industry Opposition to Local Tobacco Controls
    Ways & Means Oh Snap! Countering Tobacco Industry Opposition to Local Tobacco Controls November 2016. All rights reserved. Public Health and Tobacco Policy Center. Public Health and Tobacco Policy Center Contact: Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law 360 Huntington Ave, 117CU Boston, MA 02115 Phone: 617-373-8494 [email protected] The Public Health and Tobacco Policy Center is a resource for the New York Department of Health. It is funded by the New York State Department of Health and works with the New York State Tobacco Control Program, the New York Cancer Prevention Program, as well as the programs’ contractors and partners to develop and support policy initiatives that will reduce the incidence of cancer and tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. This work provides educational materials and research support for policy initiatives. The legal information provided does not constitute and cannot be relied upon as legal advice. Public Health and Tobacco Policy Center Industry Opposition to Local Tobacco Ordinances Tobacco companies—like other business corporations—are charged with maximizing their profits.1 Tobacco companies’ bottom lines’ are directly threatened by public policies discouraging the sales and use of their deadly product, and tobacco companies are taking an increasingly active role in opposing these policies. The tobacco industry is engaging retailers and others to join its fight against local policies intended to diminish the current status of tobacco products and tobacco use as highly visible, accessible, affordable, and seemingly common and necessary. The tobacco industry generally employs a “no-holds-barred” approach to opposing tobacco control policies—demonstrated by their vigorous opposition to regulation of tobacco use and sales.
    [Show full text]
  • By Christopher Snowdon
    NANNY STATE INDEX 2By Christopher19 Snowdon Head of Lifestyle Economics, Institute of Economic Affairs Welcome... to the 2019 Epicenter Nanny State Index, a league table of the best and worst places in the European Union to eat, drink, smoke and vape. The Index has been charting the slide towards coercive paternalism since 2016 and there is little good news to report this year. Once again, Finland tops the league table but although it maintains a strong lead, other countries are closing the gap. Estonia and Lithuania have leapt up the table, largely thanks to their temperance policies. There has been no letting up in the UK and Ireland where a tax on sugary drinks has been added to sky-high tobacco and alcohol duties. Hungary, meanwhile, tops the table for excessive regulation of food and e-cigarettes. Nine countries now have taxes on sugary and/or artificially sweetened soft drinks. These range from five eurocents per litre in Hungary to 30 eurocents in Ireland. Four of these countries - Britain, Estonia, Ireland and Portugal - have introduced their soda taxes since the last Nanny State Index was published in 2017. Belgium’s tax rate has quadrupled since being introduced in 2016. Eleven countries now tax e-cigarette fluid (up from eight in 2017) with tax rates ranging from eight eurocents per ml in Italy to 21 eurocents in Sweden. Sweden’s vapers no longer enjoy the regime of accidental laissez-faire that existed when the last Nanny State Index went to press in 2017. The Tobacco Products Directive (which regulates e-cigarettes as well as tobacco) was finally enshrined in Swedish law and implemented in the summer of 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for Pack Display Ban
    INDUSTRY INTENSIFIES ADVERTISING AT POINT-OF-SALE: A CASE FOR PACK DISPLAY BAN INTRODUCTION With tobacco advertising and promotions being either totally or partially banned in the mass media in almost all countries in Southeast Asia, the tobacco industry has shifted its focus to do marketing communication at point-of-sale (POS) by displaying a number of cigarette packs or carton. This is the remaining principal avenue for tobacco industry. Cigarette pack displays at POS are aimed at keeping them visible and normal in the public‟s mind. POS outlets are ubiquitous, and there is usually no control over their numbers which gives the tobacco industry an easy way to make cigarettes easily available. Since minors also visit retail outlets the packs positioned prominently at counters are visible to them as well. In countries that still allow advertising at POS, the situation has gone berserk. The tobacco companies lobby governments to allow them to continue advertising at POS then they exploit this advantage to outrageous extents. Brunei and Thailand have addressed this problem and as recommended in the WHO FCTC Article 13 Guidelines,1 have banned cigarette pack display at POS as part of a comprehensive ban of tobacco promotions. Brunei, Singapore and Thailand have also licensed cigarette retailers as a means for stricter regulation of retailers. This hand-out reviews the status PMI has flooded retail outlets with its new of promotions at POS and makes a case for pack Marlboro adverts, “Quality stays at 3pesos” display bans. Advertising and Promotions at Point-of-sale Although tobacco kills half its users prematurely, it is extremely easily available through the numerous retail outlets.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation on the Proposal for Standardised Tobacco Packaging and the Implementation of Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
    Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services, 17 March 2015 Consultation on the proposal for standardised tobacco packaging and the implementation of Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Consultation deadline: 9 June 2015 Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Further details about the main content of the Ministry’s proposal .............................. 7 2. BASIC FACTS ................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Tobacco use in Norway ............................................................................................... 8 2.2 Harmful health effects from tobacco use ................................................................... 10 3. STANDARDISED TOBACCO PACKAGING AND PRODUCTS ............................... 13 3.1 Existing law ............................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 EU legislation ..................................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control .............................................. 15 3.2 Objectives and justification ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Change in Tobacco Visibility at Point-Of-Sale Following a Display Ban
    Assessing Change in Tobacco Visibility at Point-of-Sale Following a Display Ban Douglas Eadie, BA Hons Jamie R. Pearce, BSc, MSc, PhD Catherine S. Best, BSc, PhD Dorothy B. Currie, BSc Hons, MSc Martine Stead, BA Hons Gozde Ozakinci, PhD, CPsychol Anne Marie MacKintosh, BSc Hons Amanda Amos, MSc, PhD Nathan Critchlow, BSc, MSc, PhD Andy S. MacGregor, MBChB, MSc Richard Purves, BSc, MSc, PhD Sally Haw, BSc Hons, Hon MFPH Objectives: In this paper, we describe a point-of-sale (POS) tobacco visibility tool and exam- ine its utility for assessing changes in visibility following legislation banning tobacco displays. Methods: An observational tool was developed as part of DISPLAY, a multimodal, longitudinal study evaluating the impact of the tobacco POS display ban in Scotland. Measures were taken of product and storage unit visibility, over 5 years, pre- and post-implementation in all retail outlets selling tobacco in 4 contrasting study areas (N = 103). Results: Data generated by the visibility tool illustrated that whereas the display ban had reduced product visibility, it had little impact on reducing visibility of tobacco storage units. However, it did narrow the inequality gap in storage visibility. It also found some shop types reduced product visibility before legally re- quired to do so. Conclusions: The DISPLAY visibility tool provides a reliable method for measur- ing visibility of tobacco displays before and after implementation of POS legislation. Tobacco product visibility reduced as expected following implementation of the legislation, but storage unit visibility persisted, providing residual cues of tobacco availability which may confound the effects of the legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • (2017): Economic Analysis of the Ban on the Display of Tobacco Products, A
    Economic Analysis of the Ban on the Display of Tobacco Products August 2017 - 1 - Europe Economics is registered in England No. 3477100. Registered offices at Chancery House, 53-64 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1QU. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information/material contained in this report, Europe Economics assumes no responsibility for and gives no guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up to date nature of the information/analysis provided in the report and does not accept any liability whatsoever arising from any errors or omissions. © Europe Economics. All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism or review, no part may be used or reproduced without permission. Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 When and where display bans have been introduced ................................................................................. 4 2 Model specification ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Rationale for choosing the first difference fixed effects model ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Post Implementation Review Report of Tobacco Legislation Coming Into Force Between 2010-2015
    A Post Implementation Review Report of Tobacco Legislation Coming into Force Between 2010-2015 January 2021 CP 344 A Post Implementation Review Report of Tobacco Legislation Coming into Force Between 2010-2015 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care by Command of Her Majesty January 2021 CP 344 © Crown copyright 2021 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-5286-2114-4 CCS0620789310 01/21 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Contents 1. Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 2 2. Aim of the Post Implementation Review ........................................................................... 5 3. Regulation objectives ......................................................................................................... 6 4. How the review was conducted ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Slovakia and in Finland: One Law, Two Different Practices? Barbara Pavlikova1* and Jitse P
    Pavlikova and Dijk BMC International Health and Human Rights (2020) 20:26 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-020-00243-x RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Slovakia and in Finland: one law, two different practices? Barbara Pavlikova1* and Jitse P. van Dijk2,3,4 Abstract Background: The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) was ratified in 2004 in Slovakia and in 2005 in Finland. The aim of this study was to compare the implementation of the FCTC in the national laws and policies regarding smoking in Finland and Slovakia. Methods: In this case study the following areas are compared: the legal framework; the monitoring system and health promotion; treatment; and policies aimed at reducing tobacco consumption. We report on these in this order after a short historical introduction. Results: The legal frameworks are similar in Slovakia and in Finland. Finland far exceeds the minimum legal requirements. Slovakian regulations reflect the FCTC requirements; however, social tolerance is very high. In Finland the monitoring system and health promotion are aimed more at tobacco consumption. Slovakia does not follow the surveillance plans recommended by WHO so strictly; often there are no current data available. No additional documents regarding the FCTC have been adopted in Slovakia. The financial contribution to treatment is very low. Slovakian tobacco control policy is more focused on repression than on prevention, in contrast to Finland. Smoking bans meet European standards. Excise duties rise regularly in both countries. Conclusion: Implementation of the FCTC is at different levels in the compared countries. Finland has a clear plan for achieving the goal of a smoking-free country.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcing Bans on Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship CCO Ep Id E Mi C , 2013
    WHO REPORT WHO REPORT O N THE GL WHO REPORT ON THE GLOBAL TOBACCO epIDEMIC, 2013 O BAL TO BAL Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship BA CCO EP ID E MI C , 2013 , ISBN 978 92 4 150587 1 20 Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland www.who.int/tobacco Includes a special section on five years of progress Tobacco companies spend tens of billions of dollars each year on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. One third of youth experimentation with tobacco occurs as a result of exposure to tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Complete bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship decrease tobacco use. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2013: Enforcing bans on Monitor tobacco use and Monitor preventionMonitor policies tobacco use and tobacco advertising, promotion and prevention policies Protect people from Protect tobaccoProtect smoke people from sponsorship is the fourth in a series of Offer helptobacco to quit tobaccosmoke use WHO reports that tracks the status of WOfferarn aboutOffer the help dangers to quit tobacco use the tobacco epidemic and the impact of Warn of tobaccoWarn about the Enforce bansdangers on tobacco of tobacco interventions implemented to stop it. advertising, promotion Enforce andEnforce sponsorship bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and Raise taxes on tobacco sponsorship Raise Raise taxes on tobacco WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2013: enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. 1.Smoking - prevention and control. 2.Advertising as topic – methods. 3.Tobacco industry – legislation. 4.Persuasive communication. 5.Health policy.
    [Show full text]