Christopher Gregory, 41, from Romsey, and Stephen Le Carpentier, 43, from Southampton, pleaded guilty to evading £27,000 of duty.
They were arrested on 17 November 2010 after port security staff saw them loading the cigarettes, thrown from a berthed container ship, into a van.
Both men have since been sacked.
The pair were also given 250 hours of community service each.
John Cooper, HM Revenue and Customs, said: "Their actions would have undercut honest retailers and deprived the UK of vital public funds.
"We will continue to work closely with the port authorities and police to root out this kind of illegal activity and disrupt criminal operations wherever possible."
Monday, July 11, 2011
Will Graphic Cigarette Labels Work? FDA Study Casts Doubt
When the Food and Drug Administration unveiled graphic new health warnings for cigarette packs last week, an agency statement said the "bold measure" would "help prevent children from smoking [and] encourage adults who do to quit." But the agency's own research concluded that the impact of the warnings might actually be negligible.
The required new warnings are an outgrowth of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. When the label requirement is fully implemented in September 2012, all cigarettes made for U.S. sale or distribution will need to include one of nine graphic new warning labels on their packages. The FDA selected the nine from 36 images that were originally proposed, after reviewing scientific literature, considering 1,700 public comments and analyzing results from a survey of almost 19,000 people. Among the warnings are images of decaying teeth and lungs, children surrounded by smoke, and a photograph of a man wearing a shirt that reads, "I quit."
But a close look at that survey's conclusions casts doubt on the initiative's potential for impact. "The graphic cigarette warning labels did not elicit strong responses in terms of intentions related to cessation or initiation [of smoking]," wrote the survey authors at RTI International, a North Carolina research institute, in their December 2010 report for the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.
The FDA paid RTI $1.3 million to conduct the survey on reactions to the labels, which included a specific attempt to gauge the impact on African Americans, according to procurement orders iWatch News obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The money did not come from taxpayer dollars, but from user fees cigarette companies are required to pay the federal government to regulate tobacco products.
The FDA collects user fees from the tobacco industry each year to pay for the Center for Tobacco Products. The budget totaled $235 million last year, a figure that -- though substantial -- is dwarfed by industry spending on marketing. A 2009 Federal Trade Commission report shows the industry spent $12.5 billion on marketing in 2006.
An FDA spokesman noted that the 2009 law required creation of the labels, and said the agency used portions of the survey that were helpful in making their determinations. "Whether to do or not to do the labels was not up for grabs," FDA spokesman Jeffrey Ventura told iWatch News. "There was never a time that people were deciding whether or not to do this. It was, 'what is the best way to do what is required under the law?'"
Despite the survey's conclusions, the FDA estimates that the labels will "reduce the smoking population" by 213,000 within the first year. This widely reported number was cited in the FDA's final rule published last week; the number was based on an FDA analysis of statistics from Canada, which began to require labels a decade ago.
According to Robert Cunningham, senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society, smoking rates have declined from 24 percent to 18 percent from 2000 to 2009. Canadian youths showed an even sharper decline in smoking from 25 percent to 13 percent over the same time span. Cunningham noted that other factors besides images on cigarette packs -- such as tax increases and restrictions on smoking in certain places -- likely played roles as well.
The FDA said it had accounted for "relevant differences" between the policies of the United States and its northern neighbor, enabling the agency to "isolate the effect of graphic warnings on smoking rates" and come up with the 213,000 figure. Cunningham said the estimate sounded reasonable, but others aren't so sure.
Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research, said the labels are an example of what he calls "Why not?" policy-making: The requirements pose no opportunity cost for the government, monetary or otherwise, so they might as well do it even if the labels' effects aren't proven, he said. "They say it's science-based, but the number is nothing more than speculation," he said.
Dr. Gil Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, a New York-based consumer education group, also was skeptical, arguing that it was impossible to isolate the effects of the labels. "Their estimate is bogus and is designed to prop up their urge to impose these lurid, large warning labels," he said.
"Exposure tends to have a diminished effect. The labels may cause a startle reaction but they tend to be taken in stride."
In the FDA study, researchers inquired about participants' emotional responses to the images, their recollection of them, their beliefs about the health risks of smoking -- and their intentions to quit.
Though most of the study showed desired results -- namely, that users had strong emotional reactions to the images, remembered them and understood the health risks of smoking -- the survey did not show any intention to change smoking habits. Nor did it indicate that the images would discourage people from beginning to smoke.
Anti-tobacco groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, dismissed the survey's conclusion about respondents' intentions, however, arguing that the survey was meant to compare the reaction to each of the images as a way of weighing which would elicit the strongest emotional response.
Reaching conclusions about whether people might start smoking or quit smoking is virtually impossible from a survey involving such brief exposure to the labels, asserted Danny McGoldrick, the campaign's vice president of research. "The exposure was so brief," he said "If you see a Nike ad one time -- are you going to go out and buy a pair of their shoes?"
McGoldrick predicted a big impact over time. "This is going to be a dramatic change in terms of what smokers encounter every time they grab a pack of cigarettes."
The United States' move toward graphic labels is representative of a larger international trend. Forty-three other nations have already passed legislation for putting labels on cigarette packs.
Canada led the way. "The international consensus is that picture warning works," Cunningham told iWatch News. "A picture is worth a thousand words and can have more emotional impact. They are harder to ignore. That's why companies use pictures in advertising -- because they work."
Information compiled by the Center for Tobacco-Free Kids showed that in Brazil, 54 percent of smokers had changed their opinions about the health consequences of smoking as a result of the labels, while 67 percent said the warnings made them want to quit. Surveys conducted in Singapore, Thailand, Australia and China showed similar outcomes.
Tobacco manufacturers oppose the new labels, arguing they are not realistic and are designed to elicit extreme reactions.
"The proposed graphic images include non-factual cartoon images, controversial photographs that appear to have been technologically enhanced to maximize an emotional response from viewers," wrote Reynolds American Inc., one of the country's leading producers of tobacco products, during a period for public comment on the FDA rules requiring the labels.
Reynolds American also challenged the FDA's conclusions on the labels prospective impacts, alluding to the RTI survey showing little change in smokers' intentions.
"In assessing the potential benefits of the proposed warnings, the rule relies on studies that not only are methodologically flawed, but also fail to demonstrate, even on their own terms, that the warnings will have any impact on smoking prevalence," the firm wrote.
But the survey may simply have measured effects over too short a duration. A 2009 study published in the Journal of Consumer Affairs suggested that the images might take time to be effective tools.
Approximately 46.6 million Americans smoke, and one in five deaths are caused by smoking-related illnesses each year, according to 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data. In addition, the CDC estimates the U.S. health cost at $193 billion annually.
To Cunningham of the Canada Cancer Society, opposition by the tobacco industry tells the whole story: its resistance suggests the labels have an effect. "If it didn't work," said Cunningham, "the industry wouldn't oppose it."
The required new warnings are an outgrowth of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. When the label requirement is fully implemented in September 2012, all cigarettes made for U.S. sale or distribution will need to include one of nine graphic new warning labels on their packages. The FDA selected the nine from 36 images that were originally proposed, after reviewing scientific literature, considering 1,700 public comments and analyzing results from a survey of almost 19,000 people. Among the warnings are images of decaying teeth and lungs, children surrounded by smoke, and a photograph of a man wearing a shirt that reads, "I quit."
But a close look at that survey's conclusions casts doubt on the initiative's potential for impact. "The graphic cigarette warning labels did not elicit strong responses in terms of intentions related to cessation or initiation [of smoking]," wrote the survey authors at RTI International, a North Carolina research institute, in their December 2010 report for the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.
The FDA paid RTI $1.3 million to conduct the survey on reactions to the labels, which included a specific attempt to gauge the impact on African Americans, according to procurement orders iWatch News obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The money did not come from taxpayer dollars, but from user fees cigarette companies are required to pay the federal government to regulate tobacco products.
The FDA collects user fees from the tobacco industry each year to pay for the Center for Tobacco Products. The budget totaled $235 million last year, a figure that -- though substantial -- is dwarfed by industry spending on marketing. A 2009 Federal Trade Commission report shows the industry spent $12.5 billion on marketing in 2006.
An FDA spokesman noted that the 2009 law required creation of the labels, and said the agency used portions of the survey that were helpful in making their determinations. "Whether to do or not to do the labels was not up for grabs," FDA spokesman Jeffrey Ventura told iWatch News. "There was never a time that people were deciding whether or not to do this. It was, 'what is the best way to do what is required under the law?'"
Despite the survey's conclusions, the FDA estimates that the labels will "reduce the smoking population" by 213,000 within the first year. This widely reported number was cited in the FDA's final rule published last week; the number was based on an FDA analysis of statistics from Canada, which began to require labels a decade ago.
According to Robert Cunningham, senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society, smoking rates have declined from 24 percent to 18 percent from 2000 to 2009. Canadian youths showed an even sharper decline in smoking from 25 percent to 13 percent over the same time span. Cunningham noted that other factors besides images on cigarette packs -- such as tax increases and restrictions on smoking in certain places -- likely played roles as well.
The FDA said it had accounted for "relevant differences" between the policies of the United States and its northern neighbor, enabling the agency to "isolate the effect of graphic warnings on smoking rates" and come up with the 213,000 figure. Cunningham said the estimate sounded reasonable, but others aren't so sure.
Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research, said the labels are an example of what he calls "Why not?" policy-making: The requirements pose no opportunity cost for the government, monetary or otherwise, so they might as well do it even if the labels' effects aren't proven, he said. "They say it's science-based, but the number is nothing more than speculation," he said.
Dr. Gil Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, a New York-based consumer education group, also was skeptical, arguing that it was impossible to isolate the effects of the labels. "Their estimate is bogus and is designed to prop up their urge to impose these lurid, large warning labels," he said.
"Exposure tends to have a diminished effect. The labels may cause a startle reaction but they tend to be taken in stride."
In the FDA study, researchers inquired about participants' emotional responses to the images, their recollection of them, their beliefs about the health risks of smoking -- and their intentions to quit.
Though most of the study showed desired results -- namely, that users had strong emotional reactions to the images, remembered them and understood the health risks of smoking -- the survey did not show any intention to change smoking habits. Nor did it indicate that the images would discourage people from beginning to smoke.
Anti-tobacco groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, dismissed the survey's conclusion about respondents' intentions, however, arguing that the survey was meant to compare the reaction to each of the images as a way of weighing which would elicit the strongest emotional response.
Reaching conclusions about whether people might start smoking or quit smoking is virtually impossible from a survey involving such brief exposure to the labels, asserted Danny McGoldrick, the campaign's vice president of research. "The exposure was so brief," he said "If you see a Nike ad one time -- are you going to go out and buy a pair of their shoes?"
McGoldrick predicted a big impact over time. "This is going to be a dramatic change in terms of what smokers encounter every time they grab a pack of cigarettes."
The United States' move toward graphic labels is representative of a larger international trend. Forty-three other nations have already passed legislation for putting labels on cigarette packs.
Canada led the way. "The international consensus is that picture warning works," Cunningham told iWatch News. "A picture is worth a thousand words and can have more emotional impact. They are harder to ignore. That's why companies use pictures in advertising -- because they work."
Information compiled by the Center for Tobacco-Free Kids showed that in Brazil, 54 percent of smokers had changed their opinions about the health consequences of smoking as a result of the labels, while 67 percent said the warnings made them want to quit. Surveys conducted in Singapore, Thailand, Australia and China showed similar outcomes.
Tobacco manufacturers oppose the new labels, arguing they are not realistic and are designed to elicit extreme reactions.
"The proposed graphic images include non-factual cartoon images, controversial photographs that appear to have been technologically enhanced to maximize an emotional response from viewers," wrote Reynolds American Inc., one of the country's leading producers of tobacco products, during a period for public comment on the FDA rules requiring the labels.
Reynolds American also challenged the FDA's conclusions on the labels prospective impacts, alluding to the RTI survey showing little change in smokers' intentions.
"In assessing the potential benefits of the proposed warnings, the rule relies on studies that not only are methodologically flawed, but also fail to demonstrate, even on their own terms, that the warnings will have any impact on smoking prevalence," the firm wrote.
But the survey may simply have measured effects over too short a duration. A 2009 study published in the Journal of Consumer Affairs suggested that the images might take time to be effective tools.
Approximately 46.6 million Americans smoke, and one in five deaths are caused by smoking-related illnesses each year, according to 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data. In addition, the CDC estimates the U.S. health cost at $193 billion annually.
To Cunningham of the Canada Cancer Society, opposition by the tobacco industry tells the whole story: its resistance suggests the labels have an effect. "If it didn't work," said Cunningham, "the industry wouldn't oppose it."
Iceland debates prescription-only cigarettes
Icelandic lawmakers were Monday considering a proposal to ban the retail sale of cigarettes and make them a prescription-only product. Under the proposal, smokers would need a valid medical certificate to buy tobacco products, which would only be available from pharmacies, The Guardian reported. Smoking "patients" would also need to submit to regular health checks.
The private members' bill was brought by Siv Fridleifsdottir, Iceland's former health minister, who told local media that the country needed to "wake up" to the dangers of smoking. A spokeswoman from the ministry of welfare praised the proposal Monday but raised doubts about its chances of success. "Siv Frideleifsdottir is a very serious politician and this is a very serious proposal," Anna Baldursdottir said. "Whether it not it eventually becomes law, I do not know. I seriously doubt it."
Iceland already has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world, with just 15 percent of people aged 15 and older lighting up regularly.
The proposal will formally be debated by the Icelandic parliament when it returns from summer recess.
Safe Cigarette Finally Developed?
Cigarette smoking is dangerous, nasty and one of the most difficult addictions to kick. But is using a "safe" cigarette better than the real thing?
A British inventor thinks so, and he's found support from several wealthy investors, and a licensing deal with British American Tobacco , the company that makes Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and Kent cigarettes.
Alex Hearn has designed a nicotine inhaler that will provide a consistent dose of nicotine, and look and taste like a regular cigarette. The product is expected to be available in England in two years.
Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, first reached the market four years ago manufactured by a Chinese company. The e-cigarettes are battery powered cylinders that look like cigarettes, but contain a vaporizer that delivers a puff of nicotine when the user sucks on it. The tip even lights up to look like a cigarette.
But smokers find that the e-cigarettes do not consistently deliver enough nicotine to satisfy their cravings. They are also not marketed as an aid to quitting, a lucrative market.
A British inventor thinks so, and he's found support from several wealthy investors, and a licensing deal with British American Tobacco , the company that makes Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and Kent cigarettes.
Alex Hearn has designed a nicotine inhaler that will provide a consistent dose of nicotine, and look and taste like a regular cigarette. The product is expected to be available in England in two years.
Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, first reached the market four years ago manufactured by a Chinese company. The e-cigarettes are battery powered cylinders that look like cigarettes, but contain a vaporizer that delivers a puff of nicotine when the user sucks on it. The tip even lights up to look like a cigarette.
But smokers find that the e-cigarettes do not consistently deliver enough nicotine to satisfy their cravings. They are also not marketed as an aid to quitting, a lucrative market.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Re-inventing cigarette warning labels is becoming a nasty habit
The Food and Drug Administration has come a long way, baby, when it comes to upgrading warning labels for cigarettes.
First, the agency mandated the placement of printed warning labels on cigarette pack side panels.
Next, it banned ad campaigns portraying cowboys as Marlboro smokers, healthy young couples picnicking in pastures as Salem smokers, and young, fiesty "I'd rather fight than switch" pugilists as Lucky Strike smokers.
Starting next year, the FDA will require cigarette packs to carry graphic health risk photos, ranging from a photo of a guy taking a smoke break through his trachea hole, to a sewn-up cadaver and a photo of a sooty lung covered lobe-to-lobe with lima bean-sized tumors.
The pictures are so graphic and gruesome, comedian Bill Maher has called on the government to provide warning labels for the warning labels.
While I'm all in favor of people giving up tobacco, I'm not convinced that the new warning labels are going to do much to achieve that goal -- although it may get people to temporarily give up overeating -- another popular public health issue.
First of all, it's hard to imagine that anyone in the United States isn't already keenly aware that smoking is a health hazard that can cause irreparable harm to some very useful parts of the human body.
First, the agency mandated the placement of printed warning labels on cigarette pack side panels.
Next, it banned ad campaigns portraying cowboys as Marlboro smokers, healthy young couples picnicking in pastures as Salem smokers, and young, fiesty "I'd rather fight than switch" pugilists as Lucky Strike smokers.
Starting next year, the FDA will require cigarette packs to carry graphic health risk photos, ranging from a photo of a guy taking a smoke break through his trachea hole, to a sewn-up cadaver and a photo of a sooty lung covered lobe-to-lobe with lima bean-sized tumors.
The pictures are so graphic and gruesome, comedian Bill Maher has called on the government to provide warning labels for the warning labels.
While I'm all in favor of people giving up tobacco, I'm not convinced that the new warning labels are going to do much to achieve that goal -- although it may get people to temporarily give up overeating -- another popular public health issue.
First of all, it's hard to imagine that anyone in the United States isn't already keenly aware that smoking is a health hazard that can cause irreparable harm to some very useful parts of the human body.
Newport ads target black youth: Stanford study
Stanford School of Medicine researchers compared pricing and advertisements for Lorillard's Newport, the top menthol brand, and Marlboro, the top non-menthol brand, at 407 stores within walking distance of 91 schools in California in a 2006 survey.
A recent analysis of the data found school neighborhoods were increasingly likely to have lower prices and more advertising for Newport cigarettes as the proportion of African-American students rose. The same was true of neighborhoods with higher proportions of children aged 10 to 17.
Marlboro prices and advertisements did not show similar trends. Marlboro is made by Altria Group Inc unit Philip Morris USA.
The study "shows the predatory marketing in school neighborhoods with higher concentrations of youth and African-American students," by the menthol cigarette maker, researcher Lisa Henriksen said in a statement.
An advisory committee to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering rules for menthol cigarettes but is not expected to ban menthol.
Researchers who had looked at advertising in school neighborhoods analyzed the pricing data in light of the looming FDA decision. The results will be published online in Nicotine & Tobacco Research on Friday.
Lorillard did not immediately comment on the study.
British American Tobacco Buys Back 225,000 Own Shares To Hold
British American Tobacco PLC (BATS.LN), said Monday that it purchased 225,000 of its Ordinary shares of 25 pence each, and said it intends to hold these shares in Treasury.
MAIN FACTS:
-The average price was 2,782.7399 per share.
-The highest price paid was 2,793 pence per share and the lowest price paid was 2,756.5 pence per share.
-Following the purchase of these shares, the Company holds 42,392,554 of its shares in Treasury.
-The Company has 1,983,569,831 ordinary shares in issue excluding Treasury shares.
MAIN FACTS:
-The average price was 2,782.7399 per share.
-The highest price paid was 2,793 pence per share and the lowest price paid was 2,756.5 pence per share.
-Following the purchase of these shares, the Company holds 42,392,554 of its shares in Treasury.
-The Company has 1,983,569,831 ordinary shares in issue excluding Treasury shares.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)