Centre To Kerala HC: Nicotine, Tar Labels Could Mislead Smokers

The Centre has reportedly told the Kerala High Court that it is against mandating the disclosure of nicotine and tar content on cigarette packets, arguing that such information could mislead consumers into believing certain tobacco products are safer than others.

The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare conveyed its stand in an affidavit filed in response to a public interest litigation seeking implementation of Section 7(5) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA). 

Although the provision requires cigarette packs to mention the nicotine and tar content of each cigarette, it has never been notified.

The government argued that nicotine and tar account for only a fraction of the harmful substances present in tobacco smoke.

ALSO READ : BAT Layoffs: Tobacco Giant To Cut 5,500 Jobs, Shift 3,500 Roles To Strategic Partners In Major Overhaul 

Displaying only these figures, it said, may provide consumers with an incomplete understanding of the health risks and could incorrectly imply that products with lower nicotine or tar levels are less harmful.

Reiterating that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption, the Centre said mandatory numerical disclosure would be "incomplete and potentially misleading" in communicating the dangers associated with smoking.

The affidavit was submitted after a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court asked the Centre to reconsider notifying the provision. 

The government said it reviewed the issue in line with scientific evidence, India's tobacco-control policies and its obligations under the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control before deciding against implementation.

ALSO READ : Packaged Foods Tops JPMorgan's Pecking Order, ITC Revenue Pressured: Marico, Nestle Poised For High EBITDA

It also maintained that the existing system of large pictorial and textual health warnings is a more effective public health measure than listing nicotine and tar values. 

The Centre further argued that notifying the provision is a policy decision that cannot ordinarily be directed by courts unless found to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. 

The case will be heard again after three weeks.

Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.