Compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement

Abstract

IntroductionTobacco companies vary pack colours, designs, descriptors, flavours and brand names on cigarette packs to target a multitude of consumers. These different brand variants can falsely imply that some brand variants are less harmful than others. Uruguay is the only country that requires cigarette companies to adhere to a single presentation (one brand variant) per brand family.MethodsAn existing, systematic pack purchasing protocol was adapted for data collection. Neighbourhoods in Montevideo were categorised into five strata by percentage of poor households. Five neighbourhoods within each stratum were selected based on geographical variation. In each neighbourhood, a ‘starting hub’ was identified and a systematic walking protocol was implemented to purchase unique packs at four key vendor types.ResultsUnique packs were purchased in 9 out of 25 neighbourhoods. Fifty-six unique packs were purchased, representing 30 brands. Of these, 51 packs were legal, representing 26 brands. The majority of the legal brands (n=16; 62%) were compliant with the requirement. The remaining packs were non-compliant due to differences in colour, design element, brand name, crest and descriptors. Although not prohibited by the single presentation requirement, 16 legal brands had more than one stick count (10, 11, 14 or 20 sticks), and packs from four brands had more than one packaging type (hard, soft or tin).ConclusionOverall, compliance with Uruguay’s single presentation requirement was good. In addition to the current restrictions, future single presentation requirements could expand to include packs in more than one stick count and packaging type.

Feminine Appeals on Cigarette Packs Sold in 14 Countries

“…Tobacco companies create brand variants that differ by color, pack design, and brand or product descriptors, (e.g. “Marlboro Red”; “ultra-light”) to target different groups of consumers [ 48 , 49 ], and they invest heavily in market research to understand the appeal of these different brands and brand variants [ 14 , 20 , 50 , 51 ]. It is possible that the industry only focused on their most successful brands and brand variants and stopped producing those with lower market sales or less appeal to women.…”

“…These findings can be useful for tobacco control efforts, primarily policies to reduce branding/targeting of cigarette packs such as single presentation requirements and plain packaging. A single presentation policy, like the one adopted in Uruguay in 2009, could reduce the number of brand variants on the market to only one, single variant per brand family and limit any proliferation of packs aimed at women [ 49 ]. Plain packaging policies like those recently implemented in study countries Thailand (2019) and Turkey (2020) could remove branded packaging altogether and require all brands be sold in packs with the same standard color, font, and layout [ 61 ].…”

“…Plain packaging policies like those recently implemented in study countries Thailand (2019) and Turkey (2020) could remove branded packaging altogether and require all brands be sold in packs with the same standard color, font, and layout [ 61 ]. Both policy options—alone or in combination [ 48 , 49 ]—have the potential to reduce the influence of the pack itself as an avenue to increase product appeal among consumers, including women in LMICs [ 36 , 37 ].…”

Saborizantes y caracteres de diseño en cigarrillos y productos de tabaco disponibles próximos a centros educativos en Montevideo, Uruguay

“…Respecto a un relevamiento de los cigarrillos disponibles en Uruguay en 2016 en el que se habían encontrado 30 marcas diferentes de cigarrillos, nuestro estudio encontró menos, lo que puede explicarse a que nuestro protocolo se limitó a puntos de venta cercanos a liceos y universidades y el de Deatley y colaboradores tomaron datos de puntos de venta en general (31) . Cinco de los ocho cigarrillos saborizados encontrados en este estudio no estaban disponibles en 2016, lo que indica el claro aumento de estas variedades en estos tres años.…”

The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products

“…First, it would limit the variety of the products available on the market and as a consequence decrease the overall attractiveness of tobacco products for consumers. Second, it could also reduce the risk for consumers of being misled, performing the same function as the single presentation requirement adopted by Uruguay [80] or a ban on deceptive descriptors on packaging (such a 'light' or 'ultra-light'), which is already endorsed by the FCTC.…”