BetaHCF Case Studies Library is in beta. We're still adding campaigns and fixing things.
HCF Case Studies Library

← All campaigns · Open in the library

Uruguay comprehensive tobacco control (2005-)

From 2005 Uruguay added, in quick succession, a total indoor smoking ban, large pictorial pack warnings (50% of the pack in 2006, 80% front and back from 2009-10), a single-presentation rule banning brand variants such as 'light', advertising bans and tax rises, and then defended the pack rules when Philip Morris International sued the country.

Years
2005–now
Country
Uruguay
Topic
Tobacco
Asks people to
Never startStopSupport a policy
Strategy
Fear appealPolicy pairedWarning label
Channel
PackagingPoint of sale
Audience
General publicYouth

Evidence

Quasi-experimentalPositive

Abascal et al. (2012), trend analysis with Argentina as control: per-person cigarette consumption fell 4.3% a year in Uruguay in 2005-11 while rising 0.6% a year in Argentina; adolescent 30-day smoking fell 8.0% a year (Argentina 2.5%); adult prevalence fell 3.3% a year (Argentina 1.7%). Gravely et al. (2014), ITC Uruguay cohort (n=1,746): after warnings grew from 50% to 80%, noticing, reading, thinking about risks and about quitting all rose (e.g. 'stopped me from having a cigarette many times' OR 3.42). Thrasher et al. (2010): Uruguay's front-of-pack warnings were more salient than Brazil's or Mexico's, but its abstract images had less cognitive impact than Brazil's graphic ones. The effects of individual measures cannot be separated.

Sponsor (who paid)

  • Ministerio de Salud Pública del Uruguay (Programa Nacional para el Control del Tabaco) Foreign government, funder

Credits (who made it)

Not recorded yet.

Sources

  1. Abascal W et al. Tobacco control campaign in Uruguay: a population-based trend analysis. Lancet 2012;380(9853):1575-82 evaluation · 2012 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60826-5 · PMID 22981904
  2. Gravely S et al. The impact of the 2009/2010 enhancement of cigarette health warning labels in Uruguay: longitudinal findings from the ITC Uruguay Survey. Tob Control 2016;25(1):89-95 evaluation · 2014 · DOI 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051742 · PMID 25512431
  3. Thrasher JF et al. Assessing the impact of cigarette package health warning labels: a cross-country comparison in Brazil, Uruguay and Mexico. Salud Publica Mex 2010;52 Suppl 2:S206-15 evaluation · 2010 · DOI 10.1590/s0036-36342010000800016 · PMID 21243191
  4. Wikipedia: Philip Morris v. Uruguay (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7; award for Uruguay 8 July 2016) reference · 2016

Research notes

Abstracts read via PubMed; Wikipedia fetched 2026-10-22. Wikipedia describes the PMI claim loosely as being about 'plain packaging'; the measures at issue were the single-presentation requirement and the 80% warnings (from memory; verify against the ICSID award). PMI was ordered to pay Uruguay's costs. Pack design agency, if any, not found. This is a policy package rather than an advertising campaign; included because pack warnings are the main mass communication. Strategy 'warning-label' is a new id (see report). Uruguay also hosted ITC research and the 2010 FCTC COP4 (Punta del Este Declaration).

Record cases/uruguay-tobacco-control-program.json, updated 2026-10-22· Link to this campaign