12.3 Labelling of 'tar', nicotine and carbon monoxide yields of Australian cigarettes

Show / hide chapter menu

12.0 Introduction

12.1 Tobacco in Australian cigarettes

12.2 Measuring cigarette smoke constituents

12.3 Labelling of 'tar', nicotine and carbon monoxide yields of Australian cigarettes

12.4 General engineering features of Australian cigarettes and their relation to compensatory smoking

12.5 Comparison of Australian and United States cigarettes

12.6 Comparison of Australian cigarettes in different yield categories

12.7 Additives in Australian cigarettes

12.8 Flavoured cigarettes

12.9 Specific carcinogens and cardiovascular toxicants in Australian cigarettes

12.10 Concluding remarks

Acknowledgments

References

Attachment 12.1 Health warnings

Attachment 12.1 References

Attachment 12.2 Reduced fire risk (RFR) cigarettes

Attachment 12.2 References

Attachment 12.3 Smokeless tobacco and harm reduction

Attachment 12.3 References

On-pack labelling of tar and nicotine yields commenced in Australia in 1982 and carbon monoxide yields were added in 1989.1 The labelling of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide 'average smoke contents' continued until March 2006. Tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide figures were printed on the side of packs, as is shown in Figure 12.2, using one of a number of nominal yield categories (see Table 12.1). Between 1994 and 2006, on-pack tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide 'average smoke contents' information was mandated by Commonwealth regulations. Prior to that, there had been a number of voluntary agreements between the Australian Government and the tobacco industry on the labelling of smoke constituents, beginning in 1981.9 Also, between 1967 and 1994, the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria and the Commonwealth Department of Health produced 'tar tables' to provide 'smoke contents' information to smokers.1

The original intent of providing tar yield figures was twofold: firstly, to inform smokers about their likely exposures to hazardous smoke constituents and, secondly, to encourage those smokers who were unwilling or unable to quit to switch to less hazardous brands.1 Later, it was also believed that 'low tar' cigarettes would reduce smokers' exposures to nicotine, thus facilitating future quit attempts.1 However, insofar as 'low tar' cigarettes provided a compelling illusion of reduced intakes while actually delivering comparable doses of nicotine and other harmful smoke constituents, they were more likely to have deterred smokers from making quit attempts than to have facilitated them.

When on-pack tar and nicotine yield labelling began in 1982, there were four categories of nominal tar yields or 'tar bands': '4mg or less', '8mg or less', '12mg or less' and '16mg or less'.1 The Commonwealth planned to phase out the '16mg or less' category but the industry successfully negotiated retaining it. Further, in 1989 and 1990, the industry unilaterally added '2mg or less' and '1mg or less' tar bands. These were subsequently included in the Commonwealth regulations. Later still, the industry added a '6mg or less' tar band for some brand families to provide more apparent choices in the middle range.

Having the market segmented into 'tar bands' enabled the Australian tobacco industry to create a larger variety of 'light' and 'mild' varieties than has existed in any other country.14 In most other countries, major brand families generally only have (or had) 'regular', 'light' and 'ultra-light' varieties. However, in Australia, nearly all major brand families were extended to fill each of the six tar bands, with a complex variety of 'mild' descriptors used to differentiate the varieties verbally and different pack colours frequently used to differentiate them visually.14 In more recent years, extra nominal tar yield categories, including '6mg or less' and '10mg or less' were used for some brand families, presumably for the purpose of creating further product differentiation within the most popular 'middle tar' yield range.

In 2005 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) determined that 'light' and 'mild' labelling of cigarette varieties was misleading conduct and obtained undertakings from two of the three manufacturers (Philip Morris and British American Tobacco) to remove such labelling (see Figure 12.1). The third (Imperial Tobacco) was eventually persuaded to do so under threat of litigation. Also, as of March 2006, tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide figures were replaced with qualitative information about harmful smoke constituents under new health warnings (see Figure 12.2). Thus, one important source of misinformation supporting belief that some cigarette varieties are less harmful than others has finally been removed. However, as has been noted, colour-coding of packs and 'smooth' and 'fine' descriptors continue to be used to identify brand family members with differing taste and harshness characteristics (see Table 12.2).2 Further, many smokers are likely to retain some memory of the nominal tar yields of their chosen brands, as for nearly a year after the ACCC's determination, the new 'smooth' and 'fine' descriptors continued to appear together with nominal tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide figures.