New Delhi, Aug 25 (IANS) Several tobacco companies across India are not carrying the mandatory pictorial warning, a new survey has revealed.
The Advocacy Forum for Tobacco Control (AFTC) said that 60 tobacco product packages from nine states manufactured on or after May 31, 2009, were analysed. These products were purchased from retail sale outlets from July 15, 2009, onwards, considering that the already existing old stock of products available in the market would need a period of 4-6 weeks to be exhausted.

The survey found that even 60 days after the law on pictorial warnings came into force, a majority of the tobacco packs either do not display any pictorial warnings or the warnings displayed are not in conformity with the rules.

The survey found that the size of the pictorial warning is much smaller than the government designated 40 percent of the pack. Of the 60 products analysed, 25 brands of gutka, 10 brands of khaini and two brands of bidi carry smaller warnings.

At least five cigarette brands and four chewing tobacco brands have misleading descriptions on the pack.

What is shocking is that there are a few brands which are yet to comply with the government order on pictorial warnings. At least eight brands of chewing tobacco and nine brands of smoking forms of tobacco do not have any warnings.

While three brands were found carrying incorrect warnings, on packages of some products the warnings are not displayed in the regional language in which the brand name is mentioned, as mandated by the law.

“Some gutka companies are again circumventing pictorial warnings by covering 40 percent area of the pack with white colour and devoting much less space to the warning. The government should hold them accountable in the interest of public health and social justice,” said Bobby Ramakant, representative of the Indian Society Against Smoking, Lucknow.

Monika Arora, director of NGO HRIDAY said: “The intent with which this provision was notified is not being fulfilled. The coming into force of the warnings was already delayed by two years and now this provision is ineffectively enforced.”