Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

May, 2007:

How to Prevent 100 Million Deaths From Tobacco

Published May 19, 2007 by The Lancet
Dr Thomas R Frieden and Michael R Bloomberg

For the first time ever, the world’s leading agent of death is a man-made substance—tobacco. If current trends continue, tobacco will kill 1000 million people prematurely during this century.1 Tobacco, which kills at least a third of people who use it,2 is also the largest single cause of health inequalities in some low-income populations.3 Millions of deaths can be prevented if we take urgent action based on available information.4

Despite this enormous and growing burden of premature illness and death, and despite evidence showing the effectiveness of antitobacco initiatives, few countries use most of these public-health interventions to reduce tobacco use and none use them all. Although the framework convention on tobacco control (FCTC) provides context for improvement, there is currently no standard technical package for tobacco control analogous to those developed and implemented for control of tuberculosis,5 HIV,6 or malaria.7 Furthermore, no quantifiable international target for tobacco control exists, and government resources and bilateral or private-sector funding are limited. Here, we propose a global target, outline a technical package, and describe a new grant programme to expand implementation of effective tobacco control.

Although global data are emerging for youth smoking,8 data for prevalence of adult smoking are non-standardised and of uneven quality. An estimated two-thirds of the world’s more than 1000 million adult smokers live in 15 low-income or middle-income nations, and 80% of the world’s smokers live in 24 countries.

Because quantification of illness caused by tobacco can be difficult, particularly in developing countries, the proportion of the adult population that smokes is the most important global target for tobacco control. Current global prevalence of smoking in adults is estimated at about 25%.1 Some developed and less-developed countries (eg, Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, and Sweden) have reduced this rate to 20% or lower by implementation of effective policies; all nations and populations should be able to achieve this prevalence level.

Simply put, and for discussion reasons, the goal would be for no nation to have a smoking rate of more than 20% and for countries to reduce the absolute smoking prevalence by at least 5% (or to decrease prevalence if already 5–10% and maintain prevalence at <5% if it was at this level at the outset) between 2005 and 2020. Keeping rates low is especially important for the large population of young women in Asia and elsewhere who do not currently smoke but are targeted by the tobacco industry. Of course, these targets would need to be reviewed and agreed by countries and global authorities. If the world reduces absolute adult smoking prevalence by 5% by 2020, at least 100 million fewer tobacco-related premature deaths would occur in people alive today, and another 50 million deaths would be prevented in infants born between now and 2030 (table 1). Virtually all deaths prevented up to 2050 would be of current smokers who quit; subsequently, prevented deaths would increasingly be of people who never start smoking.9

Population dynamics might limit the potential to reduce prevalence rapidly;10 whether this specific goal can be reached is not known. However, we do know that effective strategies to reduce smoking exist—and they are not being applied widely. Tobacco use can be decreased by addressing price, image, exposure, cessation experience, and monitoring (table 2).

In New York City, a comprehensive tobacco-control programme was implemented in 2002.11 Tax increases raised the legal retail price of cigarettes by 32% to nearly US$7 per pack. Virtually all indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants, were made smoke-free, despite vocal opposition.12 Hard-hitting print and broadcast antitobacco advertising campaigns were initiated (in the USA, state and local restrictions on tobacco company marketing are currently pre-empted by federal legislation). Smokers were provided with free courses of nicotine-replacement treatment to help them quit;13 nearly 20% of smokers were reached over 3 years. Rigorous surveillance was established.14 After a decade with no change in smoking prevalence, within 2 years there were nearly 200 000 fewer smokers in New York—a decline in adult smoking prevalence from 21·6% to 18·4%. Progress on this scale faces political obstacles: although tobacco taxation is favoured by most of the public, smoke-free policies and other measures are usually controversial when introduced, and effective tobacco-control measures are almost invariably opposed by the powerful tobacco industry. Nonetheless, antismoking measures, once implemented, are generally popular and well-accepted.

Taxation is the most effective way to reduce tobacco use,4 and it accounted for more than half the decline attributed to New York’s comprehensive programme.11 Price elasticity of tobacco consumption in established market economies is about −0·25% to −0·5% (ie, for every 10% increase in price, tobacco consumption is reduced by 2·5–5%);4 prevalence elasticity is estimated to be about half of consumption elasticity.15 In the USA, young adults and people with low income are more price sensitive than other populations.16

Price elasticity, similarly, might be higher in low-income countries than in other regions.4 If a target is set, prevalence and price elasticities are known, and a proportion of the target decline (eg, 50%) is allocated to effects of taxation, then establishing target tax rates for every country is possible. This tax rate will be effective only if it is periodically adjusted for inflation and for consumer purchasing power. Despite tobacco industry lobbyists’ claims to the contrary, increased taxation has not reduced government revenues.15

Effective taxation requires prevention of cross-border and internal smuggling. Cigarettes that have been smuggled are sold at steep discounts, stimulating demand—particularly in youth and low-income populations—and undermining tax policies.17 Implementation of the FCTC must lead to workable and effective smuggling-prevention protocols; these might draw on experiences from the arms manufacturing and controlled substances industries and hold every manufacturer legally and economically accountable for ensuring that their products are not sold illegally.17

Allocation of tobacco taxes specifically to tobacco control and other public-health measures is sometimes opposed by finance ministries.4 However, if revenues provide funding for tobacco control (including services for smokers who pay these taxes) and broader health and social service programmes, then this earmarking increases the popularity of tobacco taxes.4 In some countries, addressing concerns about workers potentially displaced from the tobacco industry can be politically important.

Changing the image of smoking is also essential to end the epidemic of tobacco use. Over recent decades, the tobacco industry has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on marketing, including traditional advertising (eg, broadcast and print advertisments, billboards), point-of-sale materials in stores, indirect marketing (eg, sponsorship of sporting and cultural events, charitable contributions, promotional allowances to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, free cigarettes, in-store product displays, and branded promotional items), public relations and lobbying, and targeted price discounts to offset taxation. Smoking is also frequently portrayed in movies, often placed, supported, and—in some cases—paid for by the tobacco industry despite prohibitions in some countries on the practice; a substantial amount of adolescent smoking initiation in the USA has been attributed to viewing of smoking in movies.18

In the USA alone, the tobacco industry, which has violated civil racketeering laws by deceiving the public about the dangers of cigarettes,19 spends more than US$13 000 million a year on marketing, more than 80% of which is for coupons and other price interventions to counteract taxation.20 Globally, tobacco marketing expenditures probably total tens of billions of dollars annually. Advertising bans called for by the FCTC have the potential to greatly reduce smoking rates, but only if they are comprehensive21 and preclude both direct and indirect advertising and promotion. To be effective, bans should also prohibit price discounts, free samples, and point-of-sale advertising and promotions, including in-store product displays. Countries can also reduce tobacco advertising by not allowing tobacco companies to deduct marketing and promotion as business expenses.

Hard-hitting, sustained, antitobacco advertising that emphasises the harmful effects of smoking can be effective.22 In the USA, California and Massachusetts reduced tobacco use substantially with strong antitobacco advertising strategies.23,24 Tobacco companies spend $50 per person every year on advertising and marketing in the USA;20 a 1999 report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that tobacco-control programmes spend annually at least $1 per person for antitobacco advertising.25 Globally, only a minuscule fraction of that amount is spent on antitobacco advertising; even if $1 per person a year were spent worldwide ($6000 million annually), the amount would represent just a small fraction of what the tobacco industry would spend unless tobacco advertising and promotion were restricted.

Establishing smoke-free public places protects the public from tobacco smoke pollution, increases the likelihood that workers will quit, enhances awareness of the health threat posed to others by tobacco smoke pollution, and can help to change the image of smoking. Raising awareness of the health risks of second-hand smoke—which happens when smoke-free public places are established by law—also encourages families to voluntarily establish smoke-free homes; this action protects children and other family members and helps smokers to quit.26 Smoking restrictions must be enforced and contain no exemptions; partial bans or separate smoking rooms do not prevent exposure and do not substantially decrease tobacco use.27

Faced with high prices, strong antitobacco advertisements, and the inability to smoke in public places, many smokers will want to quit but most will fail without assistance. Clinical and quitline-based cessation services can double an individual smoker’s chance of quitting, are highly cost effective compared with other clinical interventions, and can reduce illness and death.28 Although cessation services reduce smoking rates far less than increasing the price or changing the image of tobacco, they can be important for altering the image of cigarettes and increase the likelihood of implementing the legal changes outlined above.

Cessation services should be provided by the clinical-care system, which should itself be smoke-free. Brief doctor’s advice to patients who smoke is effective28 but rarely done. Over-the-counter nicotine replacement medicine can be important in helping smokers quit,29 and other methods are effective. Tobacco dependence is generally undertreated; ideally, people trying to quit should use medications in conjunction with as much counselling as possible.

Surveillance is important to guide programme implementation and monitor results. Standardised, biomarker-validated definitions of smoking status are needed. Surveillance can also help to assess taxation, smuggling, image, knowledge about tobacco, cessation experience, and other areas. Data are needed for price elasticities in different geographic areas, smuggling prevention, best public-education strategies, and other topics. The tobacco industry will inevitably oppose worldwide antismoking initiatives; its actions need to be identified and countered.

In August, 2006, one of us (MRB) announced the formation of a global antismoking initiative to help the world become tobacco-free, with $125 million in initial funding for the first 2 years. This initiative will promote the evidence-based approaches outlined here: increasing taxes and preventing smuggling to raise the price of tobacco; changing the image of tobacco by banning direct and indirect advertising and undertaking hard-hitting antitobacco public-education campaigns; protecting non-smokers from exposure to second-hand smoke; and helping smokers to quit. Programmes in low-income and middle-income countries will: support public-sector efforts to implement these interventions; support advocacy to educate communities and encourage policy change; rigorously monitor the status of global tobacco use and countries’ progress in implementation of interventions; and optimise tobacco-control interventions.

To put this strategy into practice, the public sector will be supported through international resource centres for advocacy, including legal expertise and health education. The initiative will support WHO to establish a global system to hold countries accountable for effective implementation of tobacco-control policies. A competitively awarded grant programme for low-income and middle-income countries will offer funds of US$50 000–500 000 for up to 2 years, with priority given to countries with the highest burden (particularly China, India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, and Bangladesh, which together account for nearly half the world’s smokers). Systematic surveillance of adult tobacco use will enable effective targeting of interventions and monitoring of their effectiveness. It is an unfortunate fact that this single grant more than doubled total development aid for tobacco control. Other private and public donors are encouraged to join the initiative.

Although tobacco is now the world’s leading killer, and although the FCTC provides the context for progress in tobacco control, there is currently no technical package for tobacco control, no measurable target, and little funding to reverse the world’s leading preventable epidemic. Substantial progress is possible if countries increase tobacco taxes, change the image of tobacco through advertising bans and antitobacco marketing, establish smoke-free places, help smokers to quit, and rigorously assess the implementation of these measures. Government economic interests in tobacco manufacturing and tobacco revenues, and tobacco industry opposition, will make implementation of these strategies challenging. But if global adult smoking prevalence declines to 20% by 2020, at least 100 million fewer people currently alive will be killed prematurely by tobacco.

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.


We thank Drew Blakeman, Jennifer Ellis, Kelly Henning, and Julie Myers for assistance with research and review of the manuscript.


1. Mackay J, Eriksen M, Shafey O. The tobacco atlas. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2006:.

2. Seeman I. National mortality followback survey: 1986 summary, United States—vital and health statistics, series 20, no 19. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics, 1992:.

3. Jha P, Peto R, Zatonski W, Boreham J, Jarvis MJ, Lopez AD. Social inequalities in male mortality, and in male mortality from smoking: indirect estimation from national death rates in England and Wales, Poland, and North America. Lancet 2006; 368: 367-370. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (80 KB) | CrossRef

4. Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, Moore J, et al. Tobacco addiction In: Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, eds. Disease control priorities in developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006: 869-885.

5. WHO. The global plan to stop TB, 2006–2015 (WHO/HTM/STB/2006.35). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006:.

6. WHO. 2006 report on the global AIDS epidemic (UNAIDS/06.20E.1105). Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), 2006:.

7. WHO. Strategic orientation paper on prevention and control of malaria (WHO/HTM/MAL/2005.1105). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2005:.

8. Warren CW, Jones NR, Eriksen MP, Asma S. Patterns of global tobacco use in young people and implications for future chronic disease burden in adults. Lancet 2006; 367: 749-753. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (93 KB) | CrossRef

9. Peto R, Lopez AD. Future worldwide health effects of current smoking patterns In: Koop CD, Pearson C, Schwarz MR, eds. Critical issues in global health. New York: Jossey-Bass, 2001: 154-161.

10. Mendez D, Warner KE, Courant PN. Has smoking cessation ceased? Expected trends in the prevalence of smoking in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 148: 249-258. MEDLINE

11. Frieden TR, Mostashari F, Kerker BD, Miller N, Hajat A, Frankel M. Adult tobacco use levels after intensive tobacco control measures: New York City, 2002–2003. Am J Public Health 2005; 95: 1016-1023. MEDLINE | CrossRef

12. Chang C, Leighton J, Mostashari F, McCord C, Frieden TR. The New York City Smoke-Free Air Act: second-hand smoke as a worker health and safety issue. Am J Ind Med 2004; 46: 188-195. MEDLINE | CrossRef

13. Miller N, Frieden TR, Liu SY, et al. Effectiveness of a large-scale distribution programme of free nicotine patches: a prospective evaluation. Lancet 2005; 365: 1849-1854. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (95 KB) | CrossRef

14. Mostashari F, Kerker BD, Hajat A, Miller N, Frieden TR. Smoking practices in New York City: the use of a population-based survey to guide policy-making and programming. J Urban Health 2005; 82: 58-70. MEDLINE | CrossRef

15. Chaloupka FJ, Hu T, Warner KE, Jacobs R, Yurekli A. The taxation of tobacco products In: Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, eds. Tobacco control in developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 237-272.

16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Response to increases in cigarette prices by race/ethnicity, income, and age groups: United States, 1976–1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998; 47: 605-609. MEDLINE

17. Joossens L, Raw M. Turning off the tap: the real solution to cigarette smuggling. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2003; 7: 214-222. MEDLINE

18. Dalton MA, Sargent JD, Beach ML, et al. Effect of viewing smoking in movies on adolescent smoking initiation: a cohort study. Lancet 2003; 362: 281-285. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (87 KB) | CrossRef

19. United States of America v Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al—F Supp 2d—, no 99–2496 (GK) (DDC Aug 17 2006)
Available at:…
(accessed Feb 5, 2007)..

20. Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission cigarette report for 2004 and 2005. Washington: Federal Trade Commission, 2007:.

21. Saffer H, Chaloupka F. The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. J Health Econ 2000; 19: 1117-1137. MEDLINE | CrossRef

22. Emery S, Wakefield MA, Terry-McElrath Y, et al. Televised state-sponsored antitobacco advertising and youth smoking beliefs and behavior in the United States, 1999–2000. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005; 159: 639-645. MEDLINE | CrossRef

23. Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Association of the California Tobacco Control Program with declines in cigarette consumption and mortality from heart disease. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1772-1777. MEDLINE | CrossRef

24. Biener L, Harris JE, Hamilton W. Impact of the Massachusetts tobacco control programme: population based trend analysis. BMJ 2000; 321: 351-354. MEDLINE | CrossRef

25. CDC. Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999:.

26. Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Anderson S, Fong GT. Determinants and consequences of smoke-free homes: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control 2006; 15 (Suppl 3): iii42-iii50. CrossRef

27. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the Surgeon General. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006:.

28. Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al. Treating tobacco use and dependence: clinical practice guideline. Rockville: US Public Health Service, 2000:.

29. Reed MB, Anderson CM, Vaughn JW, Burns DM. The effect of over-the-counter sales of the nicotine patch and nicotine gum on smoking cessation in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14: 2131-2136. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Influential People In The World – Dr Judith Mackay

World Health Organisation – 17 May 2007

Dr. Judith L. Mackay and her husband, Dr. John Mackay attend the awards ceremony on May 8, 2007. Dr. Judith L. Mackay with The Time 100 award.

In early May, Time Magazine named Dr Judith Mackay one of the “most influential people in the world” in recognition of her role as a leading campaigner for stricter tobacco control measures and vigilant critic of tobacco industry practices. As a senior policy advisor to the World Health Organization, Mackay was one of the early architects of what is today a global momentum to implement smoke-free public places and workplaces and proven, effective tobacco control measures in countries around the world. A Hong Kong resident for 40 years, Mackay was also a key player in the development of the landmark WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, one of the most widely and rapidly endorsed treaties in United Nations history.

Mackay was among those honoured by Time Magazine at a ceremony 8 May 2007 at Jazz at Lincoln Center, the Time Warner Building in New York. Among others named in Times Magazine’s “Top 100″ was New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who spearheaded the city’s successful public health campaign to make all workplaces smoke-free. In a separate initiative, Mr Bloomberg last year donated US $125 million to create a global initiative aimed at reducing tobacco use in developing countries where the number of smokers and health burden from tobacco use is highest. WHO is a key partner in the Bloomberg Global Initiative.

Risk of Exposure to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke Outdoors

Stanford University – 2nd May 2007

Study confirms the risk of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke outdoors

Tens of thousands of Americans die each year from secondhand tobacco smoke, according to a 2006 report by the U.S. Surgeon General. While the health risks associated with indoor secondhand smoke are well documented, little research has been done on exposure to toxic tobacco fumes outdoors.

Now, Stanford University researchers have conducted the first in-depth study on how smoking affects air quality at sidewalk cafés, park benches and other outdoor locations. Writing in the May issue of the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (JAWMA), the Stanford team concluded that a non-smoker sitting a few feet downwind from a smoldering cigarette is likely to be exposed to substantial levels of contaminated air for brief periods of time.

“Some folks have expressed the opinion that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is insignificant, because it dissipates quickly into the air,” said Neil Klepeis, assistant professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and lead author of the study. “But our findings show that a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels.”

Klepeis pointed to the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, which found that even brief exposures to secondhand smoke may have adverse effects on the heart and respiratory systems and increase the severity of asthma attacks, especially in children.

“We were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns,” said Wayne Ott, professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and co-author of the JAWMA study. “For example, if you’re at a sidewalk café, and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Unlike indoor tobacco smoke, which can persist for hours, the researchers found that outdoor smoke disappears rapidly when a cigarette is extinguished. “Our data also show that if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker, your exposure levels are much lower,” Klepeis added.

The public has become increasingly concerned about the effects of outdoor smoking, Ott noted. More than 700 state and local governments have passed laws restricting outdoor smoking at playgrounds, building entrances and other public areas, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Some of the strictest ordinances are in California. The city of Santa Monica, for example, recently banned smoking at parks, beaches, ATM machines, theater lines, open-air restaurants and other outdoor locations.

“Throughout the country, cities and counties are looking at various laws against outdoor smoking, and some of the proposals are pretty drastic,” Ott said. “The problem is that until now, there have been virtually no scientific data to justify such restrictions. In fact, our paper is the first study on outdoor smoking to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.”

Particulate matter

In the study, the researchers used portable electronic monitors to make precise measurements of toxic airborne particles emitted from cigarettes at 10 sites near the Stanford campus. “We wanted to quantify the potential level of exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke that could occur in everyday settings,” Klepeis said. “To do this, we used five different, state-of-the-art instruments to measure secondhand smoke at parks, open-air cafes, sidewalks and outdoor pubs where smokers were present.”

Each instrument was calibrated to measure an airborne pollutant known as particulate matter-2.5 (PM2.5), which consists of thousands of microscopic particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in width–about 30 times narrower than a human hair.

“PM2.5 is a toxic pollutant produced by cigarettes, wood-burning stoves, diesel engines and other forms of combustion,” Ott explained. “It contains benzo(a)pyrene, a carcinogen, and many other toxic chemicals that can penetrate deep inside the lungs.”

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to PM2.5 can lead to serious health problems, including asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks and even premature death in people with heart or lung disease. The current EPA ambient air standard for PM2.5 is 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over 24 hours. Levels that exceed 35 micrograms are considered unhealthy “However, since tobacco smoke contains many toxic components, including carcinogens, it may be even less healthy than typical ambient air pollution,” Klepeis noted.

Test results

To measure PM2.5 levels in secondhand smoke, the researchers placed the instruments near actual smokers in different open-air environments. “We also performed controlled experiments with burning cigarettes, which allowed us to make precise measurements of PM2.5 levels at different distances,” Klepeis said.

The results were clear: The closer you are to an outdoor smoker, the higher your risk of exposure.

“A typical cigarette lasts about 10 minutes,” Klepeis said. “We found that if you’re within two feet downwind of a smoker, you may be exposed to pollutant concentrations that exceed 500 micrograms of PM2.5 over that 10-minute period. If you’re exposed multiple times to multiple cigarettes over several hours in an outdoor pub, it would be possible to get a daily average of 35 micrograms or more, which exceeds the current EPA outdoor standard.”

Outdoor tobacco smoke consists of brief plumes that sometimes exceed 1,000 micrograms, Klepeis added. “On the other hand, clean air typically contains less than 20 micrograms of PM2.5,” he said. “Therefore, a person near an outdoor smoker might inhale a breath with 50 times more toxic material than in the surrounding unpolluted air.”

However, the researchers found that air quality improved as they moved away from the smoker. “These results show what common sense would suggest–when you’re within a few feet downwind of a smoker, you get exposed,” Ott explained. “But likewise, when you go a little distance or stay upwind, the exposure goes way down. If there’s just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem. At the same time, if there are a lot of smokers nearby, you may be exposed to very high levels of secondhand smoke. So this thing that critics have been dismissing as trivial is not.”

Added Klepeis: “If people realize that being near outdoor smokers can result in potentially large exposures to toxic air pollution, they may decide they do not wish to be exposed in a variety of outdoor settings. This realization may lead to an increased number of smoking bans in public locations.”

Countries that Have Banned Light and Mild Descriptors for Cigarettes

Countries that Have Banned “Light” and “Mild” Descriptors for Cigarettes

Canadian Cancer Society – May 1, 2007

At least 43 countries are known to have specifically banned the misleading “light” and “mild” descriptors for cigarettes. This includes the 27 countries in the European Community, and 16 other countries. In some countries, legislation is still subject to a transition period. This list should not be considered exhaustive, as there are likely other countries that should be included.

1. Australia1
2. Austria*
3. Belgium*
4. Brazil
5. Bulgaria*
6. Canada2
7. Chile
8. Cyprus*
9. Czech Republic*
10. Denmark*
11. Estonia*
12. Finland*
13. France*
14. Germany*
15. Greece*
16. Hungary*
17. Iceland
18. India
19. Iran
20. Ireland*
21. Israel
22. Italy*
23. Latvia*
24. Lithuania*
25. Luxembourg*
26. Malta*
27. Netherlands*
28. Norway
29. Panama
30. Peru
31. Poland*
32. Portugal*
33. Romania*
34. Slovakia*
35. Slovenia*
36. Spain*
37. Sweden*
38. Switzerland
39. Thailand
40. Ukraine
41. United Kingdom*
42. Uruguay
43. Venezuela

* member of the European Community
1 Through court-enforceable undertakings between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Philip Morris Ltd., British American Tobacco Australia Limited, and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited.
2 Through court-enforceable settlements entered (on Nov. 7 or Nov. 8, 2006) between the national Competition Bureau and Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. Other small companies are not covered.