Assessment of compliance of smoke-form and smokeless tobacco product packages with COTPA packaging and labelling amendment rules, 2024

Siva Prasad Reddy B.; Minal Borode; Chhaya Rajguru; Lalit Sankhe

doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263603

Authors

Siva Prasad Reddy B. Department of Community Medicine, Grant Government Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6968-4636
Minal Borode Department of Community Medicine, Grant Government Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0700-4349
Chhaya Rajguru Department of Community Medicine, Grant Government Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6023-2025
Lalit Sankhe Department of Community Medicine, Grant Government Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6642-5798

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263603

Keywords:

Compliance, COTPA, India, Pictorial health warnings, Smokeless tobacco, Tobacco packaging

Abstract

Background: Pictorial health warnings (PHWs) on tobacco packages are a proven tobacco control tool. India mandates that PHWs cover 85% of the principal display area under COTPA, as updated by the December 2024 amendment rules. Evidence on manufacturer-level compliance as assessed at the point of retail sale remains limited. We assessed compliance of smoke-form and smokeless tobacco product packages at retail outlets in Mumbai with the December 2024 COTPA amendment rules and compared compliance between categories.

Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in Mumbai from September to November 2025. Packages were collected from diverse retail settings by purposive sampling with saturation. A validated structured checklist based on the December 2024 amendment rules was used. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test were applied.

Results: 48 packages (30 smoke-form, 18 smokeless) were assessed. Only 27 (56.3%) displayed PHWs in accordance with December 2024 regulations, 15 (31.3%) carried outdated warnings, and 6 (12.5%) had no PHW. Among packages with current PHWs (n=27), smokeless products showed poorer compliance than smoke-form on warning size (0% versus 95.0%, p<0.001), ‘not for minors’ message (28.6% versus 95.0%, p=0.001), and pictorial quality (0% versus 100%, p<0.001). Misleading descriptors were more prevalent on smokeless products (57.1% versus 10.0%, p=0.024).

Conclusions: Compliance with COTPA packaging and labelling regulations remains inadequate at the retail level, with smokeless tobacco sector showing the greatest deficiencies. Urgent enforcement action, regular retail-level monitoring, and sector-specific regulatory attention are essential to translate packaging mandates into effective tobacco control outcomes.

References

World Health Organization. Tobacco. 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco. Accessed on 17 April 2026.

Goodchild M, Nargis N, Tursan d’Espaignet E. Global economic cost of smoking-attributable diseases. Tob Control. 2018;27(1):58-64.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Global Adult Tobacco Survey India 2016-17 (GATS-2). 2018. Available from: https://ntcp.mohfw.gov.in/assets/document/surveys-reports-publications/Global-Adult-Tobacco-Survey-Second-Round-India-2016-2017.pdf. Accessed on 17 April 2026.

John RM, Sinha P, Munish VG, Tullu FT. Economic costs of diseases and deaths attributable to tobacco use in India, 2017-2018. Nicotine Tob Res. 2021;23(2):294-301.

Shrestha A, Bhagat T, Agrawal SK, Limbu B. Impact of pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs among current smokers of sub-metropolitan city of Nepal: a descriptive cross-sectional study. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2024;62(277):560-3.

Hammond D. Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control. 2011;20(5):327-37.

Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Fong GT, Arillo-Santillán E. Smokers’ reactions to cigarette package warnings with and without pictorial images: evidence from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Salud Publica Mex. 2007;49(2):S233-40.

World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control- guidelines for implementation of article 11 (packaging and labelling of tobacco products). 2008. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/resources/publications/ m/item/packaging-and-labelling-of-tobacco-products. Accessed on 17 April 2026.

Verma M, Bhatt G, Lal P, Singh R, Sinha P, Pandey AK, et al. Evolution of tobacco pack health warning labels in India- a timely consensus. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):2776.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The cigarettes and other tobacco products (packaging and labelling) amendment rules, 2024. Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i). Notification G.S.R. 693(E), 2024 Dec 5. Available from: https://ntcp.mohfw.gov.in/cigarettes_and_ other_tobacco_products. Accessed on 17 April 2026.

Satpathy N, Jena PK, Epari V, Yadav A, Jena S, Pradhan SP, et al. Health warnings on tobacco packages: a compliance assessment study around educational institutions in Bhubaneswar, India. Cureus. 2023;15(12):e51206.

Dinakar C, Shetty D, Shetty P. Compliance with COTPA (packaging and labelling) rules, 2008 and its amendments in smokeless tobacco products sold across Mangaluru taluk, Karnataka, India. J Cancer Res Ther. 2023;19(5):1131-5.

Mutti S, Reid JL, Gupta PC, Pednekar MS, Dhumal G, Nargis N, et al. Perceived effectiveness of text and pictorial health warnings for smokeless tobacco packages in Navi Mumbai, India, and Dhaka, Bangladesh. Tob Control. 2016;25(4):437-43.