Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 243  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 417-422

Communicating risk: Assessing compliance of tobacco products to cigarettes and other tobacco products act (Packaging and labelling) amendment rules 2015 in Delhi, India

Department of Public Health Dentistry, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vikrant R Mohanty
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, Bsz Road, New Delhi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_668_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Tobacco is a public health problem with both health and economic consequences. Pictorial health warning (PHW) under cigarettes and other tobacco products Act, May 2003 (COTPA), offers advantages of being more universally available, low cost, and high exposure. The current study aims to assess compliance of smoking and smokeless tobacco products to Section 7, 8, and 9 of COTPA Amendment Rules 2015. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the city of New Delhi during November–December. 2017. All nine districts were included in the study and in each districts, three public places, a Metro station, a hospital, and a public park, were randomly chosen for tobacco products collection. A standardized protocol was implemented for acquiring tobacco products from these 27 diverse points. Data collected were entered into MS Excel to make digital spreadsheets and were analyzed using SPSS version 21. Results: Among 98 tobacco products, 57 (58%) and 41 (42%) were smoke form and smokeless form, respectively. Foreign Cigarette Brands and Beedi showed the least compliance followed by khaini and Gutkha. PHW was absent on 12 products (8 foreign brands of smoking type and 4 smokeless type). 42.8% (n = 42) of packaging was found to contain promotional inserts, while just 20.4% (n = 20) of the total sample size contained the presence of legislative information. Conclusions: Foreign brands and locally manufactured products (Beedi and Khaini) showed low compliance to new amendments of COTPA. Along with this, the presence of promotional inserts on tobacco packaging might be another issue to be dealt with in the future.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded68    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal