FDA proposed anti-tobacco warning
Last year the U.S. government passed a law mandating graphic warnings on cigarette packaging by June 22, 2011 in an effort to combat smoking. This past week, on November 10, the FDA released their proposed warnings. For anyone who hasn’t come in contact with the nauseating images already implemented by other countries around the world, including Canada, Australia, and Brazil, they range from depressingly informative to gruesomely graphic.
First Experience
A non-smoker, I vividly recall my first contact with these packs and the outrage of my roommate on our first day in Australia. His initial surprise by the $17 price tag was immediately dwarfed by his reaction to the high definition photo of a human foot horribly infected with gangrene and a photo of a dead infant. What could have easily been a “collect them all” game in any other context, instead made him consider the choice of featured photo from the store clerk, “Oh, can I have the skin cancer one instead?”
New Government Tactic
A relatively new government tactic of the past decade, originating in Canada and spreading to other countries, mandatory graphic cigarette warnings have finally made their way to the United States. Regulations vary depending on country, but the United States is requiring 50% of the space on the front and 50% of the space on the back be used for the newly presented FDA images. It’s worth noting that the gruesomeness of the photos varies drastically from country to country. The United States’ proposed efforts hardly compare to the truly repulsive images found in places like Australia. For those with a strong stomach interested in what other countries are doing, you can visit http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/
Effective or Not?
Learning whether or not these tactics are effective is sure to be fascinating. What sort of behavior change might we see in the United States? Are parents less apt to leave packs laying around for their children if the images are offensive enough? Will these warnings implant themselves in the essential development years, or will they be dismissed as Hollywood propaganda and categorized in the “this would never happen to me” part of human rationalization? Personally, I question if the efforts in the United States are offensive enough for people to reconsider and they may be dismissed as warnings a smoker already knows but doesn’t wish to dwell upon.
What Do You Think?
Too much government intervention or not enough? Tell us your opinion.
