AND I CAN READ TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  AND I QUIT TOO !!  Hurts the pocket book.. !! amen!

I agree with Robert...……….  If you can read and spend that kind of money?  Got to think more than once..  something is missing-- like a nice dinner out,??  A new car payment?  Even Gas for the car!!!  This is how I though when I decided to stop--  I was loosing a lot.. 

Joy I agree with you if people are gonna pay $10 a pack they probably aren't gonna pay any attention to a warning no matter what it is .

I would disagree for many reasons, but I don't want to back and forth with it.

I also agree that processed food is not good either and yes where are the warning pictures on that ? 

Actually, there have been many petitions to get certain foods (i.e. processed meats) labeled with cancer warnings. In California, fast food restaurants have signs posted that their food causes cancer. 

An unfortunate part about food labeling is that the industry often has their foot in the door when it comes to the direction these labels take. The salt, sugar, meat, dairy, and egg industries are constantly fighting science and regulations meant to protect consumers - fortunately, Big Tobacco has been losing that battle, but we have a long way before the food industry gives way. This is why consumer education about food, much like educating the public about the risks of tobacco products, should be consistent and aggressive. 

But more realistically, you have to consider this: 

Smoking, at any dose and at any frequency, is harmful. Even second and third-hand smoke is harmful. Warnings should be mandatory and upfront. 

"Processed foods" is a loaded term - are we talking whole grain bread (a processed food) or cured meats? Are we talking deep-fried potatoes or frozen fruit (both are processed foods)? 

Do these foods always cause harm? Do they provide any benefits (i.e. white bread is fortified with vitamins and minerals that certain people may not be consuming)? 

Another thing you need to consider is how much of these harmful foods is someone consuming? Nobody smokes one cigarette a month, but I can find millions who might only drink one can of soda a month. 

So the quantity matters as does the frequency, but also the content of these foods. 

EDIT: It appears that warning labels on sweetened beverages can certainly influence parent's buying decisions: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/01/13/peds.2015-3185  I, for one, would support greater efforts to label foods. 

Perhaps that was an American survey? In Canada, as far back as 20 years ago, kids knew of the risks, and awareness has only been increasing over the years. "Statistics Canada’s 1996/97 National Population Health Survey found that 96% of Canadians older than 12 are aware of smoking-related health risks. Younger people are more likely to know about the risks — 98% of those aged 20-24 knew of them, versus 93% of those aged 75 or older." http://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/162/2/250.1.full.pdf

Hi Sarah, 

I apologize for the delayed reply. I really wanted to put together some information before I followed up.

The stats you are referring to are from 1996 - a time when Canada's population of immigrants was quite low. This is important to note because the risks of smoking are less known to people born outside of the country and anti-smoking campaigns were more visible back then (i.e. posters in doctor's offices). 

A more recent (2002), comprehensive study found a great lack of knowledge across different countries, including Canadians (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593062/).

One example: "Over 20% and 40% did not believe smoking causes stroke and impotence, respectively." 

They also have misconceptions about nicotine: 

"A sizeable minority in all countries (ranging from 41% in Canada to 49% in the UK) believed that nicotine causes most of the cancer. "

I disagree with you that the photo of the ostomy is not targeting ostomies. It's not targeting yellow teeth. An ostomy is not the flagship of cancer, as there are many people with ostomies...

I may not have explained myself very well.

When I mean "they aren't targeting ostomies"  I mean what they are trying to prevent is cancer in smokers. The ostomy is being shown as a result of cancer (the most common surgery for someone with colorectal cancer), so that someone is made aware of what cancer might entail. 

It would be the same as if they put a photo of pill bottles or hospital bills (associated with having cancer), because it helps people to visualize what life with cancer might be like (most people who have never experienced cancer in their life have no idea what it's like).

The negative association with ostomies will apply to the community in general.

Perhaps that's where we differ in our perspective. I don't see the warning label or photo as a negative towards ostomies - I simply see it as a realistic look at life. It gives context to the label.

Posted by: john68

...but did come across a case here in the uk where a terminally ill cancer patient was pictured in his hospital bed and this was used on a similar ad to warn and shock. the horrible reality was the family was not asked permission and did not know until the pictures where made public. 

That's terrible. I would imagine the person responsible for using the photo without permission was reprimanded.

On a side note, here's what the labels look like in the UK (warning: they are very graphic): http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/countries/united-kingdom/

Posted by: Marann

There are so many ramifications.....I know, I worked with these patients.  They are more the norm than you want to believe.  There is nothing better than visual aids to make your point. 

Thank you for sharing your experience. I also believe (and research confirms) that visual has far more impact vs. text-only warnings. 

I wish people would proof-read their posts  for spelling and grammar, there’s no excuse for mistakes and it gets in the way of the message.