Article Text
Abstract
Background Tobacco product litter may be a form of postconsumption marketing if the littered items are branded. We conducted an observational study in India to assess the presence of tobacco product litter and determine the proportion that included branding.
Methods During November–December 2022, we identified tobacco product litter (cigarette/bidi butts and packaging; smokeless tobacco packaging) in nine Indian cities: Bengaluru, Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Delhi, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Lucknow, Mumbai and Patna. In each city, we conducted observations along 15 different routes, each approximately 250 m in distance, for a total of 135 observational routes. Data collectors classified each piece of tobacco litter (product/packaging) and recorded if the litter had visible branding, such as brand names and/or logos.
Results The study identified 17 261 pieces of tobacco product litter; SLT packaging comprised the largest proportion of the sample (62%), followed by cigarette butts (26%), bidi butts (8%), cigarette packaging (3%) and bidi packaging (1%). Across the sample, 81% (n=13 924) of the litter was branded. A brand was visible on most packaging for cigarettes (98%), bidis (97%) and SLT (86%), and present on 82% of cigarette butts and 26% of bidi butts.
Conclusion This study found that the majority of tobacco product litter in India is branded, which could function as a form of postconsumption marketing. Plain and standardised packaging and banning branding features on filters would reduce tobacco litter branding.
- Packaging and Labelling
- Low/Middle income country
- Environment
- Advertising and Promotion
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
What is already known on this subject
Tobacco products are widely littered around the world, which negatively impacts the environment.
Tobacco products and their packaging are often branded with product names and logos.
Packaging is an important means to advertise tobacco products in preconsumption environments such as stores, and it has been suggested that littered products may further advertise products postconsumption.
What important gaps in knowledge exist on this topic
Most published studies focus on litter from cigarettes in high-income countries and in settings such as beaches.
This study was conducted in urban environments in India and assessed litter of different tobacco products, and further quantified if that litter had branding (brand names and/or logos).
What this study adds
This study identified over 17 000 pieces of tobacco product litter and found that most of the litter had tobacco industry branding, including brand names and logos.
This branded litter, identified in each data collection route, could act as postconsumption advertising, which could contribute to normalising tobacco use.
Plain and standardised packaging of all tobacco products, including the stick itself, would reduce the postconsumption marketing of littered tobacco packaging.
Introduction
In India, 29% of the adult population (ages 15+)1 and 9% of adolescents (13–15 years old)2 use tobacco, including smokeless tobacco (SLT) such as khaini, and combustible tobacco products, including cigarettes and bidis. The 2003 Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (COTPA) is the principal law regulating tobacco in India. The Act prohibits tobacco advertising, including inside and outside of a retailer, and requires 85% health warning labels on the front and back of all tobacco products.3
The tobacco industry has increasingly relied on product packaging to advertise their products and promote brand imagery.4 This has been well studied, and plain and standardised packaging has been recommended as a key policy to reduce product appeal.5 6 However, most of the research in this area focuses on the role of packaging as a form of advertising preconsumption,7 that is, when packs on display at the point of sales before being purchased and used by consumers. Some studies have measured the impact of tobacco packaging litter as a form of advertising (postconsumption, ie, after the products have been consumed, their packaging is littered in the environment and on display not only for potential consumers but also for all pedestrians).8 One study in the UK found that people exposed to branded litter are more likely to remember seeing litter than when exposed to unbranded litter.9 A study in a small community in New Zealand found that young people were neutral or retained positive attitude towards the brand of branded litter compared with older people.10 Another quantitative study in the UK found that seeing branded litter resulted in lower attitudes towards the brand.7 Another study identified tobacco packaging as the second highest category of branded litter.8
Tobacco product litter is a major issue worldwide, estimated to represent 25%–40% of global litter.11 In India, tobacco products are estimated to generate annually a total of 170 331 tonnes of waste.12 We conducted an observational study in India to assess the presence of branded tobacco product litter in nine cities.
Methods
Sample
During November–December 2022, teams of data collectors visited preidentified observation routes in nine different Indian cities: Bengaluru, Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Delhi, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Lucknow, Mumbai and Patna. The cities were selected based on consultations with people in India working on tobacco control initiatives. Observation routes were identified to ensure a sample that was culturally and geographically diverse within each city.
In each city, three observation routes were identified in each of five types of neighbourhoods: business districts (ie, markets and retail areas), neighbourhoods with government offices, retail areas in neighbourhoods of low socioeconomic status, major transit hubs and schools (middle or high school-aged students). A tobacco retailer selling a range of different tobacco products was identified along each observation route. All routes were approximately 250 m in length, with an observation width range of between 2 m and 5 m. All routes were visited prior to data collection to ensure the route had a sidewalk and could be safely traversed. In addition, the study team liaised with officials of their respective cities to obtain street cleaning schedules. Data were collected after a minimum of 2 hours subsequent to street cleaning to optimise the likelihood of litter. In total, 135 observation routes were completed.
Observations
Two data collectors and one team leader were hired in each city; all research staff attended a 2-day inperson training to practise identifying litter and tobacco product branding features and entering observations in their smartphone data collection application.
Pairs of collectors traversed the predetermined route, noting each piece of tobacco product litter identified, photographing each piece and recording its geographical location. Data collectors classified the litter as being one of the following: cigarette butt, cigarette packaging, bidi butt, bidi packaging and SLT packaging, including pan masala. Each identified piece of litter was visually examined, and data collectors noted if the litter was branded with any tobacco product name and/or logo. Data collectors did not touch or move any litter so these observations were typical of what a person walking on the sidewalk might experience. When they were able to identify the brand of cigarettes, SLT and pan masala, they also selected the brand from a drop-down list; if the brand was not listed, they selected ‘other’, without including the brand name.
Analysis
Descriptive statistics are presented to show the proportion of the sample by type of tobacco product litter, by city and by neighbourhood. χ2 tests were used to compare the percentages of litter between the cities and neighbourhoods. All statistical work was conducted using Stata V.17.0.
Results
Sample
The study identified 17 261 pieces of tobacco product litter; SLT packaging comprised the largest proportion of the sample (62%, n=10 767), followed by cigarette butts (26%, n=4481), bidi butts (8%, n=1387), cigarette packaging (3%, n=448) and bidi packaging (1%, n=178).
Branding
Across the sample, 81% (n=13 924) of the litter was branded (figure 1). A brand name and/or logo were visible on the majority of packaging for cigarettes (98%), bidis (97%) and SLT (86%), and present on 82% of cigarette butts and 26% of bidi butts (online supplemental file 1).
Supplemental material
The most prevalent brands differed by city. Gold Flake was the most identified cigarette butt brand in Bengaluru, Chennai, Guwahati and Patna. Gold Flake was also the most prevalent brand of cigarette packs observed in Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Guwahati, Mumbai and Patna. For SLT packaging (excluding pan masala), V-1 was the most observed in Bengaluru, Tulsi in Guwahati and KP in Lucknow.
Overall, branded litter was equally distributed across the different neighbourhoods. Most branded cigarette and bidi butts were found around transit hubs, whereas most branded cigarette packs were found around government offices, and most SLT packaging was found in neighbourhoods of low socioeconomic status. Transit hubs had significantly lower (78%) branded litter compared with government offices (85%) (p<0.001).
Lucknow, the city with the second highest proportion of litter overall and the highest proportion of SLT litter, had the highest proportion of branded litter (92%, n=2541); Patna had the smallest proportion of branded litter (45%, n=740) (see online supplemental file for a breakdown by city).
Discussion
This study found that the majority of observed tobacco product litter was branded, which was found across all data collection routes, including near schools. Bidi butts were less likely to have branded features identified, but all other forms of tobacco product litter were mostly branded. Transit hubs had the lowest branded litter proportion.
Branded tobacco litter packaging can be a form of postconsumption marketing, potentially exposing individuals to brand messages.8 Implementation of plain and standardised packaging would eradicate this marketing channel. Evidence has shown that such policy reduces the attractiveness of tobacco products and might reduce smoking prevalence.13 Additionally, as the environment is an important factor to encourage or discourage social norms (as is the case with smoke-free signage),14 seeing littered tobacco products might increase acceptance of tobacco use as a normal behaviour. Nevertheless, studies in high-income countries found that most consumers negatively perceive the brand of the littered item seen in the streets.7 9 10
The majority of cigarette butts and some bidi butts contain a filter made of plastic that can reside in the environment in perpetuity. Beyond the already known environmental impact of the filter and how it is used to portray a false idea that cigarettes with filters are less harmful than those without filters, the tobacco industry also uses the stick as a valuable marketing area,15 communicating different product innovations like flavoured capsules. A study conducted in New Zealand found a small percentage of branded tobacco products in their sample, likely because cigarette butts are not branded in the country.16 Removing the filter from cigarettes not only would decrease its environmental impact but could curb some tobacco industry product innovation related to the filter, such as flavoured capsules and other patented features, such as transparent filter.17
This was an observational study, and the number and types of tobacco product litter are likely to fluctuate depending on factors such as weather, street cleaning cycles, holidays, etc. It is likely that data collectors missed some tobacco product litter along their routes given the challenges of observing every item in a busy/crowded street, so the actual number of tobacco product items is likely under-reported. The study was intended to assess branding in the environments we studied, and data collectors were instructed not to touch any items of litter; this means the study assessed the proportion of litter that was visibly branded, but might under-report the proportion of litter that was branded. Moreover, future studies could explore pedestrians’ perceptions of branded versus non-branded litter of tobacco products to understand how branded litter might serve to normalise tobacco use and the impact of plain packaging in the context of postconsumption advertising.
In sum, this study found that it was possible to identify a brand on all types of tobacco products in urban environments across India, creating another point of exposure to tobacco marketing as we tried to replicate exactly what people might experience when walking on the streets, as the litter was not disturbed. COTPA does not specifically restrict branding on products, including print logos/names on filters/butts. Plain and standardised packaging of all tobacco products and of the stick itself would reduce this postconsumption marketing, in addition to reducing the demand for tobacco.13 While eco-friendly packaging might be a way of decreasing the environmental impact of discarded tobacco packs, it must be accompanied by plain and standardised packaging, as to not become another way for the tobacco industry to promote itself as an environment-friendly company.18–20
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Twitter @ryan_david
Contributors RDK and GG conceived the study. RDK, GG, PB and NM supervised the data collection. BK conducted the analyses and prepared the tables available in the online supplemental table. GG was the primary writer of the manuscript and prepared the figure. All authors contributed to revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding This work was supported with funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies' Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use (bloomberg.org) (47580).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.