IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/ctcres/qt9rp541j0.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

SACTob Recommendation on Health Claims Derived form ISO/FTC Method to Measure Cigarette Yield

Author

Listed:
  • World Health Organization

Abstract

The United States Federal Trade Commission [FTC] adopted standardized testing methods for the measurement of tar and nicotine yields of cigarette smoke in the 1960s and for carbon monoxide in 1981, mandating the disclosure of these ratings in cigarette advertising (1). Under the International Organization for Standardisation [ISO] method, similar testing methods were adopted in Europe and many other countries. For nearly three decades, the ISO / FTC methods were relied upon as meaningful predictors of the differences in exposure to tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide received by smokers of brands with different machine measured yields. This difference in exposure was expected to result in substantive differences in the health effects of smoking various types (low/high yield) of cigarettes (2). Since the 1980s, however, there has been growing concern among health authorities and scientists alike about the validity of the health claims based on these methods (3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

Suggested Citation

  • World Health Organization, 2003. "SACTob Recommendation on Health Claims Derived form ISO/FTC Method to Measure Cigarette Yield," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt9rp541j0, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:ctcres:qt9rp541j0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9rp541j0.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cohen, J.B., 1996. "Smokers' knowledge and understanding of advertised tar numbers: Health policy implications," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(1), pages 18-24.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nakamura, Ryota & Yao, Ying, 2021. "Does Restricting the Availability of Cigarettes Reduce Smoking?," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-108, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    2. Beth Pontari & Andrea Stanaland & Tom Smythe, 2009. "Regulating Information Disclosure in Mutual Fund Advertising in the United States: Will Consumers Utilize Cost Information?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 333-351, December.
    3. Christopher Berry & Scot Burton & Jeremy Kees & J. Craig Andrews, 2021. "A Longitudinal Assessment of Corrective Advertising Mandated in United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(4), pages 757-770, July.
    4. Man‐Ser Jan & Tsu‐Tan Fu & Chung L. Huang, 2005. "Willingness to pay for low‐lung‐cancer‐risk cigarettes in Taiwan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 55-67, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:ctcres:qt9rp541j0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/ctcre/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.