Countering tobacco industry arguments against effective health warnings

The primary opponents of large, pictorial warnings on packages are tobacco companies. They vigorously oppose warnings because they correctly see warnings as a threat to their business.

Tobacco companies use similar arguments against pictorial warnings everywhere in the world. Here are some of the most common, with suggestions for countering them.

“There is no evidence that pictorial warnings work: graphic warnings will just scare smokers”

Dozens of studies show that smokers read, appreciate and change their behaviour in response to strong warnings. Evidence also shows that graphic warnings that arouse fear or other emotions are the most effective, particularly when combined with information to help or empower smokers to quit smoking.

“Image-based warnings will cost too much to implement”

Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have estimated the net benefit of picture warnings to be 2 billion Australian dollars (about US$ 1.43 billion), 4 billion Canadian dollars (about US$ 3.25 billion) and £206 million (about US$ 306 million), respectively. The tobacco industry bears most of the costs as a result of decreased sales. This means the warnings have their intended effect: reducing tobacco use.

“Tobacco companies need more time to implement pictorial warnings”

The typical implementation period for pictorial warnings is nine months to one year after the finalization of regulations. The industry has demonstrated that can produce pictorial warnings on packaging in as little as six months. In Canada, regulations were finalized on 26 June 2000. Larger-volume brands were required to start carrying the warnings no later than 23 December 2000. The industry complied. Canada’s experience in countering the industry’s arguments against implementation of pictorial warnings is described in detail in a regulatory impact analysis statement.

“Large warnings violate freedom of speech and trademark rights”

Countries with various legal traditions, including many Parties to the World Trade Organization, have implemented pictorial warnings without legal challenges from the industry. The tobacco industry lost its only serious court challenge against pictorial warnings before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007.

This is not to say that governments should not be prepared for litigation. Nevertheless, courts are unlikely to strike down requirements for pictorial health warnings that are based on evidence and introduced with the consultative procedures common to the country. Guidance should be sought from countries that have successfully faced such litigation, such as Canada, or countered threats of litigation, such as Thailand.