tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/plain-packaging-448/articlesPlain packaging – The Conversation2023-02-22T06:21:31Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1992222023-02-22T06:21:31Z2023-02-22T06:21:31ZE-cigarettes should be in plain packaging – just like cigarettes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510295/original/file-20230215-22-zj46uz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=36%2C0%2C5970%2C4007&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/disposable-electronic-cigarettes-hand-closeup-on-1946137795">Yarrrrrbright/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Vaping is a rapidly <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/drugusealcoholandsmoking/datasets/ecigaretteuseingreatbritain">growing habit</a> in Great Britain, particularly among <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nicotine-vaping-in-england-2022-evidence-update/nicotine-vaping-in-england-2022-evidence-update-summary#authors-and-citation">younger people</a>. Research by the anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health found that in 2022 <a href="https://ash.org.uk/uploads/Use-of-e-cigarettes-among-young-people-in-Great-Britain-2022.pdf">7% of 11- to 17-year-olds</a> in Great Britain used e-cigarettes, up from 3.3% the year before.</p>
<p>Plain packaging needs to be brought in to protect young people’s health. This would undermine efforts to hook a new generation on nicotine. Without logos, colours or images to draw on, vape products will be less able to communicate with potential customers.</p>
<p>Vapes are aggressively marketed to young adults. Packaging draws on cultural references that teenagers like and understand, such as video games. And edgy brand names, such as Ninja Vapes, make the habit look rebellious.</p>
<p>Tobacco brands have long linked themselves with symbols and activities that <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/3/213.short?casa_token=hdbXXxana2IAAAAA:86st5qejUHs2Iz1FgZ3euITdLOb2S76-iGO8wDzGWDFJrXqqgMn7uqaHuklP-rwG7Tf-iDwhxP6w">appeal</a> to certain consumer groups. The “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlboro_Man">Marlboro man</a>” associated cigarettes with <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11002-009-9069-2">ideals of masculinity</a>, for example. This attracted those intrigued by and wanting to emulate this form of masculinity. Today, vape brands are appealing to young people by linking them with things they value.</p>
<p>The packaging of vaping products makes them look fun: bright colours stand out, look cheerful and feel friendly. Sweet flavours are highlighted. Logos and slogans are bold and simple. You can even buy vapes packaged to look like <a href="https://www.vapesstores.co.uk/product/wdg-mini-cup-disposable-e-cigs-iced-water-5000-puff-15ml/">disposable coffee cups</a>. Others look like <a href="https://ravenroute.com/products/hyde-retro-rave-disposable">laughing gas canisters</a>.
Vape packaging also draws inspiration from punk and hipster themes. Logo designs recall such things as tattoos and graffiti. Names such as <a href="https://vapeuk.co.uk/bloody-mary-bm600-disposable-kit">Bloody Mary</a> reference alcohol. Meanwhile, those such as <a href="http://www.geekbar.com/">Geek Bar</a> link with subcultures.</p>
<p>Because teenagers may have less knowledge of the consequences of their consumption, they can be <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04309-2">more open to taking risks</a>. Their inexperience also means teens may be more susceptible to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379722003245?casa_token=rYZxfc5BOAkAAAAA:st8QEVlQSs1OmlReWmDE533HzJrSvvba48GRbJsQGD5YvQ0XNW4PO4zaXpXYgpKAalqPCvjLTA">misleading marketing information</a> on the health effects of vaping. </p>
<p>Teen consumers are also <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022435904000235?casa_token=uQFWsz-da-gAAAAA:rVOSY0kNPaMvodOlrQRiCDYEN3Y_KzwBYYxU9K91_0dQZqVqLIkfbx-Di3cBEMReGzB9ffkDiQ">susceptible to peer influence</a> and will often <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijcs.12746">use brands to fit in</a>. Making vapes seem edgy and rebellious offers these as a way for young adults to fit in with like-minded others.</p>
<h2>A new generation of consumers</h2>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/e-cigarette_marketing_in_the_uk_fullreport_march_2021.pdf">study by Cancer Research UK</a> found that young people are far more likely than adults to notice e-cigarette marketing. And the marketing drive seems to be working. In Australia, around <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/smoking/latest-release">20% of people aged 18 to 24</a> have used an e-cigarette or vaping device at least once. In the US in 2022, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p1007-e-cigarette-use.html">around 14% of high school</a> students were found to use e-cigarettes. And in the UK, <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/drugusealcoholandsmoking/datasets/ecigaretteuseingreatbritain">daily and occasional vape use</a> is highest among the 16 to 24 age group, and increasing fast from 7% of this demographic in 2020 to 11% in 2021.</p>
<p>This is a problem because vaping has been found to be <a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/5-truths-you-need-to-know-about-vaping">addictive</a> and <a href="https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-studies-show-damaging-effects-vaping-smoking-blood-vessels">damaging to health</a>. Researchers at Australian National University have found <a href="https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/e-cigarettes-are-harmful-and-addicting-youth-report">vapes are harmful and addictive</a>. Their investigations linked vaping with a wide range of physical, mental and environmental health issues.</p>
<h2>Let’s not make the same mistake again</h2>
<p>It took <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222369/">50 years</a> to regulate traditional cigarette marketing. We should not let that happen with e-cigarettes. Plain packaging legislation would be an efficient way to reduce the recruitment of new customers. Politicians and regulators should get ahead of consumer trends and do this as soon as possible.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A plain pack of cigarettes with a health warning label." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510321/original/file-20230215-20-2n7b1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510321/original/file-20230215-20-2n7b1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510321/original/file-20230215-20-2n7b1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510321/original/file-20230215-20-2n7b1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510321/original/file-20230215-20-2n7b1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510321/original/file-20230215-20-2n7b1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510321/original/file-20230215-20-2n7b1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It took 50 years to regulate cigarette marketing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/warning-message-on-cigarette-box-1785184835">Denis Junker/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/5/513">Research shows</a> that plain packaging can increase awareness of the health risks of smoking. And data collected in the UK found health warnings on plain packs <a href="https://www.stir.ac.uk/news/2019/03/study-reveals-impact-of-plain-cigarette-packaging-warnings/">have more of an effect on smokers</a> than those on branded packs.</p>
<p>Where plain packaging has been adopted, it has <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/31/2/263.full.pdf">constrained a powerful sales tool</a> long used by tobacco brands. Encouragingly, one <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/24/e1/e39.full.pdf?casa_token=AfkZ0fL6fDIAAAAA:85e0P7ncaLSW44utDycuB_-JvaybsrII_90UIx8PDVV_kavtuqNrq3XrUlN0NWGc8kGjYy4RwP4">study of young adult smokers in France</a> found that plain packaging was linked with increased feelings of wanting to reduce or quit smoking. If we remove the packaging, we might not only stop more teenagers from taking up smoking but help those who already have to kick the habit.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199222/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Canavan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Companies selling e-cigarettes are marketing their products to teenagers and young adults.Brendan Canavan, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1405532020-06-15T20:01:57Z2020-06-15T20:01:57ZAustralia’s decisive win on plain packaging paves way for other countries to follow suit<p>The decision, <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news20_e/435_441abr_e.htm">handed down on June 9 by the World Trade Organisation’s appeals body</a>, that Australia’s plain packaging tobacco control policy doesn’t flout WTO laws marks the end of almost a decade of legal wrangling over this landmark public health policy. And more importantly, it paves the way for other nations around the world to follow Australia’s lead.</p>
<p>In 2012 Australia became the first country in the world to implement <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2011A00148">tobacco plain packaging laws</a>, having recognised that the tobacco industry uses packaging both to market cigarettes and to undermine health warnings. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-olive-revolution-australias-plain-packaging-leads-the-world-8856">The Olive Revolution: Australia's plain packaging leads the world</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The industry has long acknowledged the powerful role of packaging design in attracting consumers and reinforcing brand image. A <a href="https://www.printinnovationasia.com/single-post/2017/01/18/The-Premiumisation-of-Cigarette-Packaging-in-Indonesia">2017 trade article</a> on the “premiumisation” of cigarettes explained the rationale behind glossy packaging:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Features such as velvet touch, soft touch, etching, rise and relief can be applied across the surface of the packaging to make the product more impactful and raise customer engagement. The look of the packaging such as intense metallics through the use of foil simulation inks can also give cigarette packaging the luxurious effect and adds on to the premium feel of the product.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c_z-4S8iicc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A Cancer Research UK video shows how children react to glossy cigarette packs.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The “plain packaging” mandated by Australia’s laws is in fact anything but. It features <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/smoking-and-tobacco/tobacco-control/tobacco-plain-packaging">graphic, full-colour health warnings</a> presented on a drab brown background. Brand logos, designs, emblems, and slogans are banned; product brand names remain, but must appear in a standardised font. </p>
<p>The result means tobacco packages can no longer serve as mini billboards that make cigarettes look aspirational and desirable.</p>
<h2>Legal challenges</h2>
<p>The tobacco industry launched three separate legal challenges to the law. First, JT International and British American Tobacco filed a lawsuit in the Australian High Court. Next, tobacco firm Philip Morris sought legal protection for its packaging designs under an existing investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong. Finally, the industry filed a dispute through the WTO on behalf of four tobacco-producing countries: Cuba, Honduras, Indonesia and the Dominican Republic.</p>
<p>In 2012 the High Court <a href="https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/au-20121005-jt-intl.-and-bat-australasia-l">ruled in favour of the Australian government</a>, and in 2015 the investment treaty tribunal <a href="https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/au-20151217-philip-morris-asia-v-australia">dismissed Philip Morris Asia’s claim</a>. The WTO also <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wto-tobacco-ruling/australia-wins-landmark-wto-ruling-on-plain-tobacco-packaging-idUSKBN1JO2BF">ruled in Australia’s favour</a> in 2018, but the Dominican Republic and Honduras appealed. </p>
<p>That appeal was denied last week, meaning all legal challenges to Australia’s plain packaging laws have now been finally and decisively overruled – more than a decade after the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd <a href="https://tobaccolabels.ca/australia-announces-plain-packaging/">first announced the policy</a> in April 2010.</p>
<h2>No more industry blocking</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/435_441abr_conc_e.pdf">WTO’s appeal body agreed</a> plain packaging laws are likely to improve public health and that they are not unfairly restrictive to trade. </p>
<p>The appeal was not expected to succeed, so the ruling comes as no surprise. But despite this, legal wrangling has become a <a href="https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/legal-challenges/court-cases-litigation-policy-brief/">standard tobacco industry practice</a>, particularly through international channels such as the WTO. One reason is because the slow and cumbersome legal process can serve as a deterrent to other countries, who may hold off implementing similar laws until the legal outcome is known.</p>
<p>Encouragingly, this stalling tactic seems to be losing its power. Countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and New Zealand have all forged ahead with plain packaging legislation despite the outstanding appeal. </p>
<p>Now, however, lower-income countries can also confidently pursue plain packaging measures <a href="https://www.mccabecentre.org/news-and-updates/tobacco-plain-packaging-legal-victory-for-australia.html">without fear of falling foul of the WTO</a>. </p>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>Australia’s plain packaging law was groundbreaking at the time. But now the tobacco industry has responded with a range of tactics to exploit loopholes and offset the impact on their brands, meaning governments need to come up with yet more countermeasures.</p>
<p>Once plain packaging was implemented, the tobacco industry quickly trademarked new brand names, such as Imperial Tobacco’s <a href="https://open.sydneyuniversitypress.com.au/9781743323977/rtec-the-future.html">Peter Stuyvesant + Loosie</a>, which contains 21 cigarettes instead of 20, and advertises the bonus cigarette within the name.</p>
<p>Canada’s <a href="https://www.cancer.ca/en/about-us/for-media/media-releases/national/2019/plain-packaging-regulations/?region=qc">plain packaging laws</a>, enacted in February 2020, directly control the size and shape of the cigarettes themselves. For example, the law bans slim cigarettes targeted at young women who associate smoking with slimness and fashion. </p>
<p>Widespread plain packaging could also help curb the <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-wants-social-media-influencers-to-promote-its-products-can-the-platforms-stop-it-129957">uprise in tobacco marketing via social media influencers</a>. A tobacco pack covered in gruesome disease imagery doesn’t make for inspiring social media content.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-wants-social-media-influencers-to-promote-its-products-can-the-platforms-stop-it-129957">Big Tobacco wants social media influencers to promote its products – can the platforms stop it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The WTO upheld Australia’s plain packaging laws because the government had convincing public health research to show the positive impact of plain packaging on public attitudes to smoking. </p>
<p>Seen in that light, the decision isn’t just a win for public health. It’s also an encouraging sign that evidence-based policies can defeat even the deepest of corporate pockets.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140553/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Becky Freeman has received funding from NHMRC, WHO, the Australian Government, Australian National Preventive Health Agency, NSW Health, Cancer Council Australia, Cancer Council NSW, NSW National Heart Foundation, Cancer Council Victoria, Healthway WA, Cancer Institute New South Wales, and the Australia-Indonesia Centre.</span></em></p>The World Trade Organisation has thrown out the final legal challenge to Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws. Now countries across the world can implement this game-changing public health policy.Becky Freeman, Senior Research Fellow, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1142792019-03-26T17:57:09Z2019-03-26T17:57:09ZWhen even winning is losing. The surprising cost of defeating Philip Morris over plain packaging<p>Australia scored a victory over the tobacco giant Philip Morris in the High Court in 2012. The court held that Australia’s plain cigarette packaging laws <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s389/2011">were legal</a> and did not constitute an unjust confiscation of trademarks and intellectual property. Philip Morris had to pay all of Australia’s costs.</p>
<p>If it had been an Australian company, that’s where it would have ended. </p>
<p>But because of a once obscure but increasingly common class of provisions in international treaties known as an ISDS (remember that name) it tried again.</p>
<h2>ISDS actions are costly…</h2>
<p>ISDS or <a href="http://aftinet.org.au/cms/Against_ISDS">investor-state dispute settlement</a> clauses give to foreign companies rights unavailable to local companies. They get to claim billions in compensation through an extraterritorial tribunal if they believe their rights have been infringed on even after losing in Australia’s highest court.</p>
<p>Philip Morris, a US company, moved ownership of its Australian operations to Hong Kong to take advantage of ISDS in an Australia-Hong Kong investment treaty.</p>
<p>The case made headlines around the world, in part because it scared other countries out of following Australia’s plain packaging law and being on the hook for massive compensation and legal fees if they lost.</p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6UsHHOCH4q8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Australia versus Philip Morris. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) February 2015.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>In December 2015 Australia won, completely. </p>
<p>The tribunal decided said that Philip Morris was not a Hong Kong company and had moved ownership of its Australian operations to Hong Kong in order to take advantage of the ISDS provision.</p>
<p>And that’s where things rested until late last month when a half a decade later a freedom of information request revealed how much Australia’s win cost it.</p>
<p>Australia’s external legal fees and arbitration costs amounted to almost A$24 million. It is likely to have had to bear substantial internal costs in the departments of health, attorney generals and foreign affairs and trade on top of the A$24 million.</p>
<p>Even though Philip Morris had its case thrown out on the grounds that it was an abuse of process, it will <a href="http://aftinet.org.au/cms/sites/default/files/190322%20Unredacted%2BExcerpt%2Bof%2BCosts%2BAward.pdf#overlay-context=users/editor">only have to pay half</a> of Australia’s costs.</p>
<h2>…even if you win</h2>
<p>There are now <a href="https://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS">942</a> known ISDS cases, with increasing numbers against <a href="http://aftinet.org.au/cms/sites/default/files/Key%20ISDS%20health%20cases_0.pdf#overlay-context=Against_ISDS">health</a> and <a href="http://aftinet.org.au/cms/ISDS">environment</a> laws, including laws to address <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-fossil-fuel-era-is-coming-to-an-end-but-the-lawsuits-are-just-beginning-107512">climate change</a>.</p>
<p>Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws were recommended by the <a href="https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2011/en/">World Health Organisation</a> and designed to reduce the numbers of young people becoming new smokers. Research showed that young people were attracted to the glamorous images on the packaging, and that plain packaging could reduce the attraction.</p>
<p>The tobacco plain packaging law was passed with bipartisan support in 2011. The tobacco companies responded with a barrage of strategies to obstruct the law. They claimed billions of dollars of compensation in the High Court, and <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1208/S00225/philip-morris-on-australian-plain-packaging-for-tobacco.htm">helped other governments</a> take a dispute with Australia in the World Trade Organisation. </p>
<h2>And they are secretive</h2>
<p>Until now the loss in the tribunal set up under ISDS provisions has been a secret. It was blacked out in the publication of the original <a href="https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2190">costs decision</a> in 2017.</p>
<p>ISDS tribunals have notoriously lower standards of transparency than national courts but costs figures have been published in other ISDS cases. The refusal to reveal them was a new low in secrecy. <a href="http://aftinet.org.au/cms/node/1434">Community organisations</a> argued that taxpayers had the right to know.</p>
<p>The first <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/02/revealed-39m-cost-of-defending-australias-tobacco-plain-packaging-laws">FOI case</a> to reveal the costs, launched by Senator Nick Xenophon and continued by Senator Rex Patrick, resulted in the Australian government releasing internal government figures in 2018 which showed invoices for external legal costs of A$39 million. </p>
<p>The government later claimed the A$39 million covered the ISDS case, the earlier High Court challenge and the World Trade Organisation case. It refused to reveal the specific ISDS legal costs and what percentage of the total costs had been awarded to Australia.</p>
<p>The most recent FOI case on the ISDS costs, launched in 2017 by a <a href="https://www.iareporter.com/articles/final-costs-details-are-released-in-philip-morris-v-australia-following-request-by-iareporter/">legal publication</a>, took another two years to reveal in February that the costs were almost $A24 million but Australian taxpayers were awarded only <a href="http://aftinet.org.au/cms/sites/default/files/190322%20Unredacted%2BExcerpt%2Bof%2BCosts%2BAward.pdf#overlay-context=users/editor">half of this</a>.</p>
<p>This decision reinforces the case against ISDS provisions. Australia could afford to defend the case, but A$12 million is still a loss to taxpayers that could have been spent on health or other community services. </p>
<h2>Other countries are phasing them out</h2>
<p>It is a cost poorer countries simply cannot afford. Uruguay was only able to defend its tobacco regulation against a Philip Morris ISDS case because the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/18/bloomberg-gates-foundation-fund-nations-legal-fight-big-tobacco-courts">Bloomberg Foundation</a> funded its legal costs.</p>
<p>Faced with increasing numbers of ISDS cases, India, South Africa and Indonesia have <a href="https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/pcgtw_fdi-inflows-from-bit-termination_0.pdf">cancelled</a> ISDS arrangements without negative impacts on investment. </p>
<p>The EU is <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/juncker-proposes-fast-tracking-eu-trade-deals/">excluding ISDS from its current deals</a>, including the <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-minister-trade-tourism-and-investment-and-eu-trade-commissioner">EU Australia FTA</a> now being negotiated, but is pursuing longer-term but equally <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s-bTcSJBRw1ShnQKGaxR8TSJ2TPd1Mrs/view">controversial</a> proposals for a multilateral investment court. The US and Canada have excluded ISDS from the revised <a href="https://www.iisd.org/library/usmca-investors">North America Free Trade Agreement</a>.</p>
<p>On Tuesday this week Australia and Hong Kong signed a <a href="https://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/a-hkfta/a-hkfta-text/Pages/default.aspx">free trade agreement</a> and a new <a href="https://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/a-hkfta/Pages/the-investment-agreement-text.aspx">investment agreement</a>, that will continue to include ISDS. </p>
<p>The government claims that it has more safeguards for changes to public health laws than the old one that it replaces. It specifically excludes tobacco regulation and regulation relating to Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Gene Technology regulator. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/canada-has-an-isds-clause-with-the-us-it-has-faced-35-challenges-is-this-australias-future-48757">Canada has an ISDS clause with the US. It has faced 35 challenges. Is this Australia's future?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But the need for those specific exceptions suggests that the general safeguards for public interest regulations are ineffective. They wouldn’t prevent cases being brought against Australia over energy or climate change regulations or changes in industrial relations laws.</p>
<p>Australia should exclude ISDS from current trade negotiations, and remove it from existing agreements. The Coalition government still supports ISDS, but Labor has pledged to outlaw it and remove it from the deals we have, as have the Greens and Centre Alliance. </p>
<p>It will take continued community pressure to ensure that actually happens if the government changes in the coming election.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114279/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pat Ranald is an honorary Research Fellow at the University of Sydney and the honorary Convener of the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network of community organisations.</span></em></p>Australia comprehensively defeated the tobacco giant, but is left with a multi million dollar bill.Patricia Ranald, Research fellow, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1060942018-12-18T09:52:14Z2018-12-18T09:52:14ZPlain packaging for tobacco: what other countries can learn from the UK’s experience<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247732/original/file-20181128-32197-d8bfok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/1237698337?src=1ddgxy7ysE0ufytJyPnB7A-1-48&size=medium_jpg">Billion Photos/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bans on tobacco advertising, promotion, sponsorship and open display in shops in the UK encouraged tobacco companies to make “<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11469-009-9247-8">the pack the hero</a>”. So they opposed plain packaging and claimed there was no evidence it would <a href="https://www.bath.ac.uk/case-studies/debunking-big-tobaccos-arguments-against-standardised-packaging/">reduce smoking</a>. They also attempted to thwart the policy <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-tobaccos-dirty-tricks-in-opposing-plain-packaging-66854">through lobbying</a> and <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/10/e012634">third-party interference</a>, and unsubstantiated claims about the effect on <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/e2/e168">price, businesses</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/unscrupulous-methods-used-by-tobacco-industry-revealed-over-illicit-trade-38755">illicit trade</a>.</p>
<p>Following a review of the potential <a href="http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf">public health benefits</a>, the government introduced a policy that made <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596139/Tobacco_Packaging_Guidance.pdf">plain packaging</a> mandatory for cigarettes and rolling tobacco sold in the UK. The policy was first introduced in May 2016 and, after a transition period, became compulsory in May 2017. But research has shown that tobacco companies appeared to <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/nty006/4803581">delay introducing plain packs</a>, continued to explore ways to <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/e1/e85">promote products</a> and did not follow through with their predictions <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.14488">that prices would decline</a>. </p>
<h2>Stalled start</h2>
<p>The UK was the third country to introduce plain packaging. The government gave tobacco companies and retailers a year to sell off fully branded stock before plain packaging became compulsory. This transition was longer than the <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/08/01/tobaccocontrol-2018-054483">two months allowed in Australia and seven-and-a-half months in France</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/nty006/4803581">Our research </a>shows that tobacco companies delayed the withdrawal of fully branded packaging and stalled introducing plain packaging. Many products did not appear in plain packaging until halfway through the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/nty006/4803581">transition year</a> and, even when they filtered through, it was not until <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/nty006/4803581">March 2017</a> – two months before plain packaging became compulsory – that retailers sold more products in plain packaging than in fully branded packaging.</p>
<p>Attractive packaging increases the appeal of <a href="https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/Cancer-campaings-the-packaging-of-tobacco-products.pdf">tobacco products</a>, including for <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/9/e003282">young people</a>. Tobacco companies appeared to take advantage of the longer transition period to extend the presence of fully branded packaging as a <a href="https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/Cancer-campaings-the-packaging-of-tobacco-products.pdf">marketing tool</a>. The staggered introduction of plain packaging in the UK may have also gradually desensitised consumers to the new designs.</p>
<h2>Concerns of falling prices unfounded</h2>
<p>Tobacco companies were <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212074/Summary_of_responses_to_consultation_-_standardised_packaging_tobacco.pdf">adamant</a> that plain packaging would make price the only way that brands could compete, leading to lower prices, greater affordability, and higher smoking rates, thus defeating the purpose of the policy.</p>
<p>Yet early evidence suggests that concerns of falling prices <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.14488">are unfounded</a>. Over the 12-month transition period, and for six months after plain packaging was compulsory, the price of leading cigarettes increased by almost 5%, equal to an extra £0.38 per 20 cigarettes. And the price of hand-rolling tobacco increased by almost 8%, equal to an extra £0.91 per 30 grams.</p>
<p>These rises are partly influenced by the prices at which retailers <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/08/17/tobaccocontrol-2018-054409">choose to sell tobacco</a>. But when tracing back up the supply chain, the recommended retail prices for tobacco products were also found to have increased. This suggests that tobacco companies instigated these price rises. That prices were also reported to have increased above <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/add.14282">inflation and tax duty</a> in the same period suggests that tobacco companies did little to protect affordability as plain packs were introduced.</p>
<p>Similar prices rises were <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/Suppl_2/ii82">reported in Australia</a> after plain packaging was introduced. This implies that suggestions of falling costs and rising affordability were intended to deter plain packaging, although long-term monitoring is needed to see whether the rise in prices and reductions in affordability are maintained.</p>
<h2>Keeping product appeal</h2>
<p>Tobacco companies respond to <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/6/519">so-called “dark markets”</a>, where most tobacco marketing opportunities are restricted, by concentrating their focus on <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296302004496?via%3Dihub">remaining promotion opportunities</a>. Our research suggests that this also happened for plain packaging, with tobacco companies exploring gaps in the policy and developing <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/e1/e85">ways to keep their products appealling</a>.</p>
<p>Before plain packs became compulsory in the UK, tobacco companies introduced limited editions of fully branded packaging. Limited edition packaging can increase sales, introduce a collector’s mentality and have a <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/3/274">lasting effect on brand perception once sold out</a>. All leading tobacco companies also introduced <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/19/marlboro-tins-plain-packaging-tobacco-firm-philip-morris-cigarettes">fully branded reusable tins</a>, providing a long-term alternative to plain packs. </p>
<p>Tobacco companies also introduced features to maintain product appeal, even when <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/e1/e85">sold in plain packaging</a>, such as resealable inner foil to preserve freshness and innovative filters. This included a filter containing two capsules that could be squeezed to change the cigarette flavour to mint or spearmint. Such innovation is important given that use and appeal of capsule cigarettes is <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/20/9/1157/4098286">greater in younger smokers</a>.</p>
<p>Even once plain packaging became compulsory, tobacco companies sought to tweak pack designs to create a marketing edge. This included packaging with bevelled edges, which the law allows, and slim packs, which do not appear to meet the minimum size needed for health information on the side of packs. Both developments are important, given that tobacco company documents suggest that these new packaging designs are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.12183">appealing to young adults and may lead to increased sales</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247703/original/file-20181128-32221-1iahhh8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247703/original/file-20181128-32221-1iahhh8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247703/original/file-20181128-32221-1iahhh8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247703/original/file-20181128-32221-1iahhh8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247703/original/file-20181128-32221-1iahhh8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=665&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247703/original/file-20181128-32221-1iahhh8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=665&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247703/original/file-20181128-32221-1iahhh8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=665&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Plain packaged cigarettes with a slim pack design (left) and bevelled edges (right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The number of countries introducing plain packaging <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/08/01/tobaccocontrol-2018-054483.info">continues to grow</a>, so it is important to raise awareness of tactics that may undermine the policy and encourage other governments to take steps to limit any disruption. Shortening the time to implement plain packs, greater transparency and monitoring pricing strategies, and standardising all aspects of the pack design are important first steps.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106094/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nathan Critchlow receives funding from Cancer Research UK. He is employed by the Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling, which is part of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS). Through his employment he works on research funded by Cancer Research UK, NHS Health Scotland, GambleAware, and Alcohol Focus Scotland. He has previously received funding from The Salvation Army UK and Ireland and worked on research funded by the Public Health Research Consortium, Institute of Alcohol Studies, Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, Alcohol Action Ireland, and the National Institute for Health Research. He is currently a serving board member of Alcohol Focus Scotland. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danielle Mitchell receives a studentship from the University of Stirling to support her PhD research. Her PhD is based in the Institute for Social Marketing at the University of Stirling, which is part of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies. As part of the Institute for Social Marketing, Danielle has worked on research projects funded by Cancer Research UK.</span></em></p>Tobacco companies stalled introducing plain packs, explored loopholes in the law and didn’t follow through with suggested price cuts.Nathan Critchlow, Researcher, Institute for Social Marketing, University of StirlingDanielle Mitchell, PhD Student, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1028742018-09-23T15:30:35Z2018-09-23T15:30:35ZBig Tobacco’s opposition to plain packaging is plain spin<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236989/original/file-20180918-158228-1vivgt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An Ottawa high school student looks at plain cigarette packaging examples on World No Tobacco Day in May 2016. Tobacco companies are railing against Ottawa's plans for plain cigarette packaging in Canada. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>No matter how you look at it, a standardized cigarette pack is ugly. The colours are unappealing, the font bland and the large graphic health warnings gruesome. That’s why standardized packaging is such an <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/Suppl_2">effective public health policy</a> — and why tobacco companies hate it. </p>
<p>The Canadian government is currently drafting regulations on standardized tobacco packaging as required by the new <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/tobacco/legislation/federal-laws/tobacco-act.html">Tobacco and Vaping Products Act</a> passed in May 2018. Tobacco companies are trying to weaken the regulations through lobbying and public relations campaigns. </p>
<p>Our research finds that these efforts are based on the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.001">same arguments and selective sources</a> of information that the industry has used in other countries that have proposed similar measures, including Australia, the U.K. and the Netherlands.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-plain-tobacco-packaging-law-at-the-wto-14043">Australia's plain tobacco packaging law at the WTO</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We reviewed tobacco industry campaigns from around the world and found they all used the same key messages: That no evidence exists to support claims for the effectiveness of plain packaging; that such legislation contributes to a “slippery slope” of regulation that would accelerate the encroachment of the “nanny state” into citizens’ lives; that standardized packaging represents a threat to intellectual property rights and would increase the illicit trade in tobacco products. </p>
<p>To support these messages, public relations documents refer exclusively to studies funded by the tobacco industry or from groups with links to the tobacco industry.</p>
<h2>Misleading messages</h2>
<p>In Canada, JTI-MacDonald, the country’s third-largest tobacco company, launched the <a href="https://www.bothsidesoftheargument.ca/sides-plain-cigarette-packaging-debate/">Both Sides of the Argument</a> campaign, which claims to presents the “facts” against standardized packaging using websites, posters, advertisements, as well as Twitter and Facebook accounts. </p>
<p>Campaign materials argue that no credible evidence has emerged from Australia to support the effectiveness of standardized packaging, and repeat the same misleading messages used to challenge legislation in Australia and the U.K.</p>
<p>The campaign quotes research from consulting firms paid for by tobacco companies, which do not describe their methods in detail or subject them to peer review. </p>
<p>Knowing they have little public credibility, tobacco companies rely on “arms-length” advocacy groups to create false controversy around packaging regulations. </p>
<p>For instance, the <a href="http://www.stopcontrabandtobacco.ca/">National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco</a> argues that “plain packaging has increased contraband tobacco in other countries and will likely do the same in Canada” without providing evidence of increased illicit activity elsewhere.</p>
<p>The coalition receives funding from <a href="https://www.stopcontrabandtobacco.ca/about-us/">the tobacco industry</a> and lists the Tobacco Manufactures Association as one of its members. </p>
<p>The Canadian Convenience Store Association, which has also received tobacco industry funding, argues that plain packaging would hurt small business, basing its claim on “detailed studies from Australia,” which were commissioned by British American Tobacco Australia and Philip Morris Australia. </p>
<p>What is presented as concern for the unfair treatment of small, local businesses is in fact the desire of some of the largest and most profitable global corporations to protect their profits at the expense of public health.</p>
<h2>Diversionary tactics</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/4291911/tobacco-plain-packaging-consultation/">recent poll</a> by Global News found that 63 per cent of respondents in Canada did not think standardized packaging would reduce smoking rates. This not only suggests that tobacco industry public relations campaigns are working, they’re also muddying the debate by framing success of the policy in terms of immediate smoking reductions. </p>
<p>This is a diversionary tactic also used in Australia, with <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/philip-morris-wrong-plain-packaging/5137682">some success</a>, and it is now being reproduced in Canada. </p>
<p>Proponents of standardized packaging do not claim the policy will result in immediate smoking reductions. The long-term goals are to discourage people (especially youth) from taking up smoking, to encourage smokers to quit and to avoid relapse among ex-smokers. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14679">Evidence from Australia</a> demonstrates that standardized packaging is making progress in achieving these goals. </p>
<p>Canadian policymakers can anticipate ongoing opposition from tobacco companies when they enact packaging legislation. Experiences from Australia and elsewhere suggest that industry campaigns do not end with implementation, but continue on after new laws are introduced in an attempt to discredit and ultimately repeal the policy. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236991/original/file-20180918-143281-r1f993.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236991/original/file-20180918-143281-r1f993.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236991/original/file-20180918-143281-r1f993.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236991/original/file-20180918-143281-r1f993.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236991/original/file-20180918-143281-r1f993.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236991/original/file-20180918-143281-r1f993.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236991/original/file-20180918-143281-r1f993.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An example of a cigarette package is displayed during a news conference in New Zealand in 2013. New Zealand moved ahead with plain tobacco packaging in 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Nick Perry)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Policy advocates must therefore remain vigilant and prepared to counter industry misinformation. </p>
<p>Adopting standardized packaging policy is not only crucial to protect the health of Canadians, but will have international significance. </p>
<p>In implementing the regulations, Canada stands with those countries <a href="https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/global/pdfs/en/standardized_packaging_developments_en.pdf">that have introduced similar legislation</a> (France, the U.K., Norway, New Zealand, Ireland, Hungary, Slovenia and <a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2018/09/07/plain-packaging-for-cigarettes-and-rolling-tobacco.app/">Belgium</a>) and acts as a model to those countries considering the policy. As this policy spreads, momentum will build, including in low- and middle-income countries that may have less established tobacco control policies in place.</p>
<p>Through standardized packaging measures, Canada can not only secure the health of its citizens and future generations, it will reinforce its role as a global leader in tobacco control and public health.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ross MacKenzie receives funding support from the National Institutes of Health. He he has previously worked on research projects supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, and Cancer Council NSW.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Hawkins, Jappe Eckhardt, and Julia Smith do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Canadian government is currently drafting regulations on plain packaging for cigarettes. Tobacco companies are trying to weaken the regulations via lobbying and misleading PR campaigns.Julia Smith, Research Associate, Simon Fraser UniversityBenjamin Hawkins, Assistant Professor, London School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineJappe Eckhardt, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of YorkRoss MacKenzie, Lecturer in Health Studies, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/973822018-05-31T12:05:04Z2018-05-31T12:05:04ZHow South Africa is tightening its tobacco rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221132/original/file-20180531-69481-i0m72z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa was a leader in tobacco control but has not updated its policies adequately.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>South Africa’s Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has published a <a href="https://www.gov.za/document/latest">new tobacco control bill</a> which, if passed into law, will tighten the grip on how cigarettes and other tobacco products are sold, marketed and regulated in the country. Health and Medicine Editor Candice Bailey asked Catherine Egbe about what it means for tobacco control.</em></p>
<p><strong>What’s significant about South Africa’s pending tobacco control legislation?</strong></p>
<p>There are five key areas of tobacco control that the new bill seeks to address: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>a smoke-free policy, </p></li>
<li><p>plain or standardised cigarette packaging, </p></li>
<li><p>regulating e-cigarettes, </p></li>
<li><p>points of sale marketing, and </p></li>
<li><p>removing cigarette vending machines. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Some are addressed in South Africa’s current tobacco control law. But the country still doesn’t fully comply with the standards set by the World Health Organisation’s <a href="http://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/">Framework Convention on Tobacco Control</a>. South Africa signed the convention in 2005.</p>
<p>Smoke-free public places is one example. The current law bans smoking in public places but allows for designated smoking areas in places like bars, taverns and restaurants provided that they do not take up more than 25% of the venue. </p>
<p>The WHO’s convention calls for 100% smoke-free public places to protect non-smokers fully.</p>
<p>In line with this, the new bill calls for a 100% ban on smoking in public places. It will also ban the advertising of cigarettes and other products at tills or selling them in vending machines. </p>
<p>The health warnings on cigarette boxes and other tobacco product packages is another example. The current law allows for text health warning on 20% of the package. But the convention calls for a minimum of 30% and encourages countries to have the more effective plain or standardised packaging with graphic and textual warnings in place. </p>
<p>So the new law mandates standardised packaging with graphic health warnings to make tobacco packages less attractive to new smokers and to discourage old smokers from continuing to smoke.</p>
<p>The bill is also significant because it attempts to regulate e-cigarettes for the first time in South Africa. To date e-cigarettes have been freely marketed and sold anywhere to anyone, including children. </p>
<p><strong>Is there evidence that the planned interventions will work?</strong></p>
<p>There’s a great deal of evidence from the rest of the world.</p>
<p>Let’s start with smoke-free policies. In countries like South Korea and the US where they are in place, research shows that they led to an overall <a href="http://www.jksrnt.org/journal/view.html?uid=93&&vmd=Full">improvement in health</a>, particularly <a href="https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0140673614600829/1-s2.0-S0140673614600829-main.pdf?_tid=9f329e15-83a6-4326-be76-3df681abc165&acdnat=1527684144_394c509d8bb6a67ff3cca6b8a42f9026">children’s</a> health. </p>
<p>Incidents of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29775915">smoking-related cancers</a> went down and there was a reduction in <a href="http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e022490">childhood smoking</a>. There was also an increase in the number of smokers saying they want to <a href="https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/853418/">quit</a>.</p>
<p>When it comes to packaging, studies show that it <a href="http://www.tobaccopreventioncessation.com/Refuting-tobacco-industry-funded-research-empirical-data-shows-decline-in-smoking-prevalence-following-introduction-of-plain-packaging-in-Australia,60650,0,2.html">encourages</a> smokers to <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/200/1/association-between-tobacco-plain-packaging-and-quitline-calls-population-based">quit</a> and <a href="https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-016-0421-7">discourages young people</a> from wanting to start smoking. Plain packaging was first introduced in Australia in 2012. </p>
<p>E-cigarettes are still a relatively new factor. But research is already casting doubts on various claims made about them. First introduced in <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/25/world/fg-china-cigarettes25">China in 2004</a> they were initially mooted as an aid to quit smoking. But research shows that they in fact encourage young people to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5938547/">start smoking cigarettes</a>. And 18 studies have shown that e-cigarettes do not reduce quit rates. Instead, the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29582077">latest research</a> shows that they do the reverse – they reduce the quit rates of smokers intending to quit by about 66%.</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://globaltobaccocontrol.org/node/14052">83 countries</a> that regulate e-cigarettes and about <a href="https://globaltobaccocontrol.org/e-cigarette/policy-domains">27</a> that have completely banned their sale. These include Brazil, Singapore, Uruguay, Seychelles and Uganda. </p>
<p>The advertising, promotion and sponsorship of e-cigarettes are regulated or prohibited in <a href="https://globaltobaccocontrol.org/e-cigarette/policy-domains">62 countries</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Why is it important to have a legislation like this?</strong></p>
<p>Tobacco smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in the world. Smoking also <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/globalaids/success-stories/perfectstorm.html">worsens TB and HIV treatment outcomes</a>. Yet 37% of South African men and 6.8% of South African women aged 15 years and <a href="http://www.mrc.ac.za/sites/default/files/files/2017-05-15/SADHS2016.pdf">older use tobacco </a>.</p>
<p>Before the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, South Africa was a leader in tobacco control in Africa and across the world because of strong tobacco control legislation it had put in place. But the laws weren’t updated according to current WHO’s standards and the country now lags behind some other African countries.</p>
<p>The new legislation will place South Africa on the right path. Apart from saving millions of lives, it will ensure that South Africa fulfils its obligation as a party to the WHO convention.</p>
<p>There are several benefits to having strong legislation. </p>
<p>Firstly, it will protect millions of South Africans who don’t smoke but take in secondhand smoke from those who do. They face the same <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm">health risks</a> as active smokers. </p>
<p>Secondly, it will also help encourage people to quit and live healthier lives and discourage young people from starting. </p>
<p>And thirdly, the tobacco industry views young people as <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf">replacement smokers</a>. Strong legislation will prevent young people from being manipulated by the tobacco industry.</p>
<p><strong>What are the next steps?</strong></p>
<p>Once the bill becomes law, the health minister will have to draw up several regulations to guide its implementation. These will ensure that the law is interpreted correctly and not manipulated by the tobacco industry and that the potential gains of the legislation are not watered down.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97382/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine O. Egbe's works as a postdoctoral research fellow at the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education (2015 - 2017) were previously funded by the National Cancer Institute Grant CA-087472. </span></em></p>South Africa’s proposed new tobacco laws will tighten the grip on how cigarettes and other tobacco products are sold, marketed and regulated in the country.Catherine O. Egbe, PhD, Specialist Scientist, Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, South African Medical Research CouncilLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/772632017-05-19T08:59:38Z2017-05-19T08:59:38ZHow Big Tobacco is losing the fight to stop plain packaging of cigarettes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169940/original/file-20170518-12226-h749y3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/en/cigarette-box-empty-unhealthy-1313470/">Pixabay</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You may already have seen the tobacco packs currently sold in the UK: a dark, murky green colour with large graphic health-warning images and scary messages aimed at informing current and potential smokers about the devastating consequences of tobacco consumption. They have no colourful logos, with the brand name just displayed in small characters in a standard font. </p>
<p>These packs are now required by <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111129876">new regulations</a> which entered into force in May 2016. There has been a one-year transitional period for the sell-through of old stock – and from May 20 2017 all tobacco products on sale in the UK must comply with the new rules.</p>
<p>The legislative move has been recommended to all countries <a href="http://www.who.int/campaigns/no-tobacco-day/2016/faq-plain-packaging/en/index1.html">by the World Health Organisation</a> to reduce the attractiveness of smoking and eventually reduce consumption. Australia was the first country to introduce such strict packaging requirements <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-olive-revolution-australias-plain-packaging-leads-the-world-8856">in December 2012</a>. France and, of course, the UK have since followed suit.</p>
<p>It follows <a href="https://www.stir.ac.uk/news/2016/05/experts-comment-new-laws-tobacco/">significant research</a> that shows these new standardised cigarette packs are much less appealing to consumers – and young people especially.</p>
<h2>The industry’s legal defeats</h2>
<p>No wonder tobacco companies have challenged the measure in the courts. They <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Industry_Arguments_Against_Plain_Packaging">have argued</a> that it is useless, too harsh – and is an infringement of their fundamental and intellectual property rights, especially trademarks. Yet, their claims are <a href="http://theconversation.com/plain-packaging-does-not-violate-big-tobaccos-intellectual-property-rights-38802">based on weak arguments</a> and have been rejected by both <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/19/tobacco-firms-lose-high-court-battle-plain-packaging-uk">the High Court of England and Wales</a> and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38157220">Court of Appeal</a>.</p>
<p>The tobacco industry has faced numerous courtroom defeats of late. Last year <a href="http://theconversation.com/uruguays-victory-against-big-tobacco-is-more-than-just-a-local-triumph-62319">Uruguay won a landmark case</a> against the Swiss giant Philip Morris International. The company had sued the Latin American state after it introduced two measures affecting tobacco packaging and trademarks. These were mandatory graphic health warnings covering 80% of cigarette packets (a measure very close to plain packaging) and the obligation for tobacco companies to adopt a single presentation for their brands, dropping for example the “gold” and “blue” descriptors, that could lead smokers to believe one variant was safer than another. </p>
<p>The fact that the courts sided with Uruguay would have been encouraging to other countries aiming to introduce controls on tobacco packaging. And even greater encouragement came recently from a World Trade Organisation ruling which deemed that the plain packaging requirements introduced by Australia as compliant with international trade and intellectual property rules – and are therefore a legitimate public health measure. </p>
<p>The decision has not been officially announced, but a confidential draft of the interim ruling <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/wto-said-to-uphold-australia-s-ban-on-cigarette-logos">was leaked to the media</a> and the final decision is expected later this year. The Australian measure had been challenged at the WTO tribunal by Cuba, Dominican Republic, Indonesia and Honduras, countries whose economies strongly rely on the tobacco industry.</p>
<h2>A domino effect?</h2>
<p>This is a blow to the industry. The short-term consequences of the WTO ruling – Imperial Tobacco’s shares fell more than 2% <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/may/05/australias-defeats-wto-challenge-to-plain-packaging-of-tobacco">after the decision was leaked</a> – reflects the longer-term danger that this ruling poses. It will likely convince other states to introduce plain packaging legislation without fear of violating international trade and intellectual property laws. It basically gives them a green light by removing the regulatory chilling effect that such legal action has produced on countries that wanted to follow Australia’s example.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169948/original/file-20170518-12257-1qsswqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169948/original/file-20170518-12257-1qsswqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169948/original/file-20170518-12257-1qsswqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169948/original/file-20170518-12257-1qsswqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169948/original/file-20170518-12257-1qsswqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169948/original/file-20170518-12257-1qsswqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169948/original/file-20170518-12257-1qsswqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More and more countries are introducing plain packaging rules.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After all, more and more countries seem interested in adopting standardised packaging. As well as France and the UK, <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/plain-packaging-for-cigarettes-to-begin-in-september-1.3028834">Ireland</a> and <a href="http://www.uicc.org/norway-adopts-standardised-packaging-save-lives-and-prevent-suffering-tobacco-use">Norway</a> will introduce packaging restrictions later in 2017, and <a href="http://ensp.org/policies/resources/plain-packaging/">Hungary</a> in 2018. Many other states are debating similar measures, including New Zealand, Canada, Belgium, Slovenia, Belgium, Singapore and Thailand.</p>
<p>So, a legislative trend has started which aims to restrict the ability of tobacco manufacturers to make their products appealing to consumers by using eye-catching words, logos or ornamental features on the pack. And attempts by Big Tobacco to stop it by relying on legal arguments around trade and intellectual property rights are being systematically dismissed by courts around the world. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the industry needs to accept the fact that its ability to use fancy brands, especially on packaging, may be reduced by governments for public health reasons. Also that a company’s property rights are not absolute or untouchable. Not only does it not have enough legal basis – as has now been confirmed by several courts and tribunals – but it also disregards legitimate policies adopted by democratically elected governments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77263/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Enrico Bonadio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UK is the latest country where tobacco companies cannot market their brands on their packets.Enrico Bonadio, Senior Lecturer in Law, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747492017-05-07T19:38:23Z2017-05-07T19:38:23ZJunk food packaging hijacks the same brain processes as drug and alcohol addiction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168034/original/file-20170505-21608-20gdmn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Neuroscience shows the brain's reward centres are activated by certain packaging.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Food is important for our survival, which is why all living beings have developed an urge for high energy foods, like those high in sugar and fat. Historically, this hadn’t been an issue, as energy dense foods weren’t always as available as they are today. </p>
<p>But in modern societies, we not only have easy access to cheap, high-energy food, we also have marketing companies pushing them at us. Food packaging plays a big part in <a href="http://tarjomefa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/5476-English.pdf">triggering brain processes</a> that influence our food choices - similar brain processes that get us stuck on addictive behaviours. </p>
<h2>How our brain works in addiction</h2>
<p>Some people who eat too much high-calorie food show similar behavioural patterns to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v13/n4/full/nrn3212.html">those with addictions</a>. An important behavioural component of addiction is a longing to experience the drug again and again, while in many cases, <a href="http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n11/full/nn1105-1442.html">regretting that behaviour</a>. This distinction between <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756052/">wanting something but not necessarily liking it</a> is shown in many studies. </p>
<p>In the 1950s, two <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1955-06866-001">Canadian physiologists ran experiments</a> with electrodes implanted in specific brain regions of rats. The rats were then given the opportunity to stimulate these brain regions, later termed “reward centres”, by pressing a button. Once they started pressing the stimulation button, they stopped doing anything else, which was the first hint of a strong behavioural reinforcing mechanism. </p>
<p>Since then, researchers have shown that this reward centre of the brain – termed the “ventral striatum” – is also <a href="http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n11/abs/nn1579.html">involved in substance addiction</a>, such as to heroin or cocaine. Just showing people drug-related pictures <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15465974">led to a strong activity</a> in the parts of the brain related to craving for the drugs.</p>
<h2>How our brain responds to junk foods</h2>
<p>With methods like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which allows us to measure brain activity in healthy volunteers, researchers have started to investigate processes underlying how we eat and view foods. </p>
<p>Such <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12948696">studies robustly show</a> that images of high caloric foods, like chocolate bars or cakes, lead to a stronger activity in the reward areas of the brain, in contrast to apples or salads.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165751/original/image-20170419-32689-1t9n8xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165751/original/image-20170419-32689-1t9n8xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165751/original/image-20170419-32689-1t9n8xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165751/original/image-20170419-32689-1t9n8xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165751/original/image-20170419-32689-1t9n8xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165751/original/image-20170419-32689-1t9n8xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165751/original/image-20170419-32689-1t9n8xe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Foods like cakes and burgers lead to stronger activity in our brain’s reward areas in contrast to apples or salads.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=OqI5LQEnDEmDDy5lnCxYXA-1-0">www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Longitudinal studies, which follow people over a period of time, have shown that the stronger the reaction <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22332246">in the brain’s reward areas</a> when confronted with these foods, the more weight people will gain over the next year. </p>
<p>These insights have made scientists think about how they could intervene to make people less reactive to foods high in calories. One important mechanism, which was <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19407204">researched by a team in California</a>, is that of self-control. </p>
<p>Volunteers were able to regulate the reward-related brain activity towards junk food. While in an MRI machine, they were instructed to focus on health attributes while making choices for healthier food options. When doing so, another region of the brain strongly involved in self-control (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) was more active and regulated the spontaneous rewarding brain activity. </p>
<p>The main problem, though, is that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10748642">people are not capable</a> of applying self-control over longer periods.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165754/original/image-20170419-32720-1pw01m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165754/original/image-20170419-32720-1pw01m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165754/original/image-20170419-32720-1pw01m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165754/original/image-20170419-32720-1pw01m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165754/original/image-20170419-32720-1pw01m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165754/original/image-20170419-32720-1pw01m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165754/original/image-20170419-32720-1pw01m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A part of the brain’s prefrontal cortex is strongly involved in self-control.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/curtiscripe/32508360463/in/photolist-RwDQZv-yEftBq-eVzDoQ-osBBgA-36684f-6e3V2H-KVVxf-7fFWJt-b5nPWk-361nZr-5JxPNU-xZL4k-6iqy7v-ow5xyt-eWSV56-4gpEiv-5QH4yC-v8ay6V-4CWxwu-H9fRs5-89hX9w-vStNis-5AX2Wc-CVVQyo-BMkuLy-Q5d4qv-ELCeQv-Ekeyu8-DUDT8D-HGbVqA-FKDKEp-GCFtzw-EtjPsL-PZiXNU-G5xYzU-EcEiJw-PKY41g-My4Yu9-No5FGt-KYvdAq-HpaMva-Kcfzm4-KYuXwN-Kc4t5u-P68BEm-NszPhm-E1QNKC-E2bfVe-E1QNNU-E2bdnP">CurtisCripe/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The impact of marketing</h2>
<p>We may think our eating decisions are mainly driven by rational factors such as weighing up the different attributes of products – for example, prices and content. But research shows we are strongly <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jafio.2015.13.issue-1/jafio-2015-0015/jafio-2015-0015.xml?format=INT">influenced by environmental factors</a> that nudge us into making different decisions.</p>
<p>Designs of packages, brands or claims on food products also influence how we value and consume them. These influences are of course extensively used by companies to affect consumers’ choices. </p>
<p>Companies make use of bright colours, and well-known characters from movies or other celebrities to distinguish their products from others. These visual properties act as signals that <a href="https://elearning2.uniroma1.it/pluginfile.php/101781/mod_resource/content/1/Relative_visual_saliency_differences_induce_sizable_bias_in_consumer_choice.pdf">influence the way we value products</a> and make people more likely to be attracted to certain items over others. </p>
<p>Some studies in children show <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15010186">food-directed commercials</a> influence the amount of calories they consume, with this effect especially pronounced in overweight children. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165771/original/image-20170419-1910-trfdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165771/original/image-20170419-1910-trfdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165771/original/image-20170419-1910-trfdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165771/original/image-20170419-1910-trfdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165771/original/image-20170419-1910-trfdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165771/original/image-20170419-1910-trfdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165771/original/image-20170419-1910-trfdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research has begun to reveal why we are compelled to eat what we eat. It shows that food packaging plays a big part in influence choices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=PrWWY6d1r3ybhbHZkLQxmw-1-51">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the fact contextual factors play a strong role in the perception of foods can also be used to help consumers in their choices.</p>
<p>We <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00882/full">conducted a study</a> in school children where we presented the same cereals in different packages. One of these was especially designed to be more appealing to children – we created cartoon characters and placed them on the package. </p>
<p>The same cereal not only tasted better when it was in the more appealing package, but children were also willing to make more effort to receive it (by more strongly pressing on a specially designed hand lever). </p>
<p>This influence of marketing on the actual taste experience has also been referred to as the marketing placebo effect. Expectations consumers may have about a known brand or a nice design can lead to actual differences in taste and consumption patterns, probably by acting on the human reward circuitry and raising the subjective pleasure of the taste experience.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74749/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernd Weber receives funding from the German Research Council and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.</span></em></p>No wonder we’re addicted to junk food. Neuroscience shows food packaging affects our enjoyment of these foods, and plays on the same brain processes as hard drug addiction.Bernd Weber, Professor, Centre for Economics and Neuroscience, University of BonnLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/772342017-05-05T02:14:58Z2017-05-05T02:14:58ZWorld Trade Organisation gives Australia’s plain tobacco packs the (draft) thumbs up<p>The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/wto-said-to-uphold-australia-s-ban-on-cigarette-logos">reportedly</a> backed Australia’s laws on plain tobacco packaging implemented from December 2012.</p>
<p>The apparent decision marks the end of the last of three cases brought against Australia’s plain packaging; it will almost certainly open the floodgates and see other nations implementing the measure.</p>
<p>However, the report quoted two unnamed sources and no details of the final decision, which will be formally available in July. It is also not clear which precise stage of the dispute we’re at. Depending on the accuracy of the media report, there may well be <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm">three of four more stages</a> before the report is finalised, outlined here:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>first draft: the panel submits the descriptive (factual and argument) sections of its report to the two sides, giving them two weeks to comment. This report does not include findings and conclusions.</p></li>
<li><p>interim report: the panel then submits an interim report, including its findings and conclusions, to the two sides, giving them one week to ask for a review.</p></li>
<li><p>review: the period of review must not exceed two weeks. During that time, the panel may hold additional meetings with the two sides.</p></li>
<li><p>final report: a final report is submitted to the two sides and three weeks later, it is circulated to all WTO members. If the panel decides the disputed trade measure does break a WTO agreement or an obligation, it recommends the measure be made to conform with WTO rules. The panel may suggest how this could be done.</p></li>
<li><p>ruling: the report becomes the ruling or recommendation within 60 days unless a consensus rejects it. Both sides can appeal the report (and in some cases both sides do).</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>What is the WTO dispute?</h2>
<p>Several minnow nations in global tobacco trade (Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras) joined by a major tobacco grower and consumer, Indonesia, brought the case to the WTO. Ukraine had earlier been part of the action, but withdrew.</p>
<p>The applicants argued that Australia’s plain packs breach the WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, in that they are discriminatory, more trade restrictive than necessary, and unjustifiably infringe upon trademark rights. The WTO has been working on the dispute for the past five years.</p>
<p>The final decision will be open to appeal from July, which may excite the tobacco industry with the prospects of further delaying the will of other nations to introduce their own plain packaging legislation.</p>
<p>Nations, not companies, must bring disputes to the WTO. But <a href="http://www.mccabecentre.org/focus-areas/tobacco/dispute-in-the-world-trade-organization">British American Tobacco and Philip Morris</a> have ploughed support into the case. The companies spent many millions fighting plain packs in Australia and the UK.</p>
<h2>The long fight against plain packaging</h2>
<p>The WTO case is the third failed attempt by Big Tobacco and its national supporters to wreck plain packaging using laws and treaties.</p>
<p>In October 2012, the full bench of Australia’s <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s389/2011">High Court</a> upheld plain packaging law in a humiliating 6-1 judgement. But there was worse to come for the tobacco companies and their vast, deep pockets. </p>
<p>In June 2011, Philip Morris Asia took Australia to the <a href="https://pca-cpa.org/en/home/">Permanent Court of Arbitration</a> in an investor-state dispute.</p>
<p>There were three arbitrators: Australia appointed Professor Don McRae of the University of Ottawa; Philip Morris Asia appointed Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; and the Permanent Court of Arbitration appointed Professor Dr Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel as the presiding arbitrator. </p>
<p>In the final judgement in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-17/philip-morris-loses-legal-battle-against-plain-packaging-laws/7420356">May 2016</a> all three arbitrators – including the Philip Morris Asia appointed arbitrator – supported the Australian government’s law.</p>
<p>Today’s news should be three strikes and out for any legal fantasies that Big Tobacco has about legally strangling nations’ rights to legislate plain packaging.</p>
<p>But past form will almost guarantee these companies will continue to intimidate particularly small, impoverished nations. Big Tobacco will continue to launch domestic law cases against plain packaging where the costs of defending laws against wealthy transnationals may be daunting. </p>
<p>Big Tobacco has been implicated in <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-34970163/panorama-the-secret-bribes-of-big-tobacco">bribery allegations</a>, and tobacco companies may pay special attention to nations with <a href="http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview">high corruption indexes</a> where nascent efforts to introduce plain packaging might be easily distracted.</p>
<h2>Eyes on Australia</h2>
<p>There has been immense international interest in what has happened in Australia with plain packs. Some 54 months after Australia implemented standardised plain tobacco packaging, here’s the state of play in 18 nations:</p>
<ul>
<li>six nations have legislated for and have implemented or will shortly be implementing plain packaging (Australia, France, UK, Norway, Ireland and Georgia)</li>
<li>three nations have legislated but not yet implemented (Hungary, New Zealand, Slovenia)</li>
<li>seven nations have legislation in early stages or under formal consideration (Belgium, Canada, Finland, Mauritius, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguay)</li>
<li>two nations have signs of early political momentum (Brazil, Chile). While Chile does not have what is officially described as plain packaging, it has graphic warnings that take up the front and back of packs.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Why is the WTO case important?</h2>
<p>The essence of the WTO case is whether nations have a right to introduce laws intended to protect and promote the health of their citizens. </p>
<p>In all this, we need to reflect that there are many examples of governments introducing strong restrictions, bans or penalties on the sale or promotion of commercial products for cultural or health reasons. </p>
<p>Many nations, including Australia, severely restrict civilian access to firearms; asbestos products are banned in several nations; pharmaceutical products are subject to stringent formulation, dosage, access, packaging and sales controls, with direct-to-consumer advertising of prescribed products allowed in only two nations (the USA and New Zealand); several Islamic nations prohibit the sale of alcohol; food safety regulations have been accepted as the norm for many decades; many nations impose strict quarantine regulations on importing exotic animals, insects and biological material.</p>
<p>We have not seen, for example, firearms manufacturers lobbying nations to bring cases to the WTO or other global tribunals to force such nations to relax their gun control laws. This is because of the principle of nations being able to have sovereignty over their own internal laws and regulations.</p>
<p>Restrictions and regulations on tobacco packaging need to be seen against this background and against the exceptionally deadly and addictive status of tobacco – a product which sees <a href="https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0281-z">two in three of its long-term</a> users die prematurely. </p>
<p>In this, tobacco is unique among all consumer goods. It is one of the reasons why tobacco was also the subject of the world’s first global health treaty, the <a href="http://www.who.int/fctc/en/">World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control</a>, now ratified by 180 nations, representing 89% of the world’s population.</p>
<p>Take a giant global bow, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Roxon">Nicola Roxon</a>, the former Labor health minister and attorney general who championed plain tobacco packaging in Australia during the Rudd and Gillard governments against trenchant opposition from the global tobacco industry.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><a href="https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/12257/7/9781743324295_Chapman_RemovingtheEmperorsClothes_FT.pdf">Removing the emperor’s clothes: Australia and tobacco plain packaging</a> by Simon Chapman and Becky Freeman, is freely available to download.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77234/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has reportedly backed Australia’s laws on plain tobacco packaging implemented from December 2012. The apparent decision marks the end of the last of three cases brought…Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747942017-03-22T14:02:23Z2017-03-22T14:02:23Z26 years ago the UK signed up to formula milk advertising rules – so why isn’t it law yet?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162007/original/image-20170322-31219-f4re2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protecting children's health starts with curbing formula adverts.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/baby-bottle-boxes-infant-milk-381680932?src=Uvjq01ckbdCdF9iK97Gd8A-1-3">Kacenki/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Like the <a href="https://theconversation.com/mothers-are-made-to-feel-guilty-whether-they-breastfeed-or-formula-feed-their-baby-66101">topic of infant feeding</a> itself, public health bills can be a minefield. For each issue, there can be numerous pros, cons and opinions. And much like the debates that follow them, it is quite often that some go undiscussed by the mainstream media.</p>
<p>Ask any mum or dad and they will tell you that parenting media in the UK is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11697178/Breastfeeding-Formula-industry-has-hijacked-breastfeeding-for-profit.html">flooded with</a> potentially <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1201307/Formula-milk-ad-banned-misleading-parents-immunity-boosting-claims.html">misleading</a> advertising for <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-16/debates/552A05C8-5D1C-4BDB-BB2A-03C37A034DD4/FeedingProductsForBabiesAndChildren(AdvertisingAndPromotion)">certain formula products</a>. </p>
<p>Many global health organisations state that babies should be breastfed <a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/global_strategy_iycf/en/">exclusively for the first six months</a> of their lives. But for some mums that is not possible, either for their own health or other personal reasons. These mothers instead turn to “first infant formula” – for babies up to six months old – to feed their children.</p>
<p>The problem is that though the NHS tells mothers that babies who are fed first infant formula need <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/Pages/types-of-infant-formula.aspx">nothing more than that</a>, there is still a wide range of “follow on” formulas available for babies over six months old. The health service has a clear stance that this <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/Pages/types-of-infant-formula.aspx">variety is unnecessary</a>, saying outright that there is “<a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/Pages/types-of-infant-formula.aspx">no evidence</a>” that formulas marketed for “hungrier babies” make them sleep longer, for example.</p>
<p>So why do manufacturers make these products, and advertise their “health benefits” if children don’t need them? The current UK rules are that though follow-on formula milk can be promoted, manufacturers and sellers are <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3521/contents/made">banned from advertising</a> “first infant formula”. <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/">Baby Milk Action</a>, the UK member of the <a href="http://www.ibfan.org/">Intentional Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)</a>, has <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/ukrules-pt2a">highlighted</a> that these adverts encourage brand recognition and cross-promote products, including infant formula intended for use by newborns.</p>
<p>The UK government does not proactively monitor formula advertising for breaches, so infant formula companies, who profit when women do not breastfeed, regularly undermine breastfeeding by <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/monitoringuk17">breaching the code</a>. Price promotions and prominent displays have been placed at the point of sale, and advertisements and promotions suggest that infant formula <a href="http://www.which.co.uk/reviews/formula-milk/article/choosing-the-right-formula-milk/breastfeeding-vs-formula-milk">is comparable to breast milk</a> in terms of health and development. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162008/original/image-20170322-31176-1rdmano.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162008/original/image-20170322-31176-1rdmano.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162008/original/image-20170322-31176-1rdmano.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162008/original/image-20170322-31176-1rdmano.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162008/original/image-20170322-31176-1rdmano.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162008/original/image-20170322-31176-1rdmano.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162008/original/image-20170322-31176-1rdmano.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Supermarket aisles are stocked with formula options.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/toronto-canada-november-22-2014-baby-233666974?src=hu8qAJf1-RvRrOM0ZROsXw-1-6">ValeStock/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are now moves to change this, however. The <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/feedingproductsforbabiesandchildrenadvertisingandpromotion.html">Feeding Products for Babies and Children (Advertising and Promotion) Bill</a> passed through parliament <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38000569">on its first reading</a> with unanimous support in November 2016 – though as yet it has not attracted the public attention that it should have. </p>
<p>If enacted, the bill would provide important provisions to protect the health of babies and children from corporate advertising, which the World Health Organisation <a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/global_strategy_iycf/en/">identifies as a priority</a> for improving child health. It would bring into UK law <a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/code_english.pdf">WHO provisions</a> on the marketing of infant formula which have been in place since 1981. Though the country is signed up to the code, until this bill arrived the government had not <a href="http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/206008/1/9789241565325_eng.pdf">fully legislated to implement it</a>.</p>
<p>The WHO code includes a ban on the promotion of formula, including through advertising, gifts directed towards mothers and health professionals, and at the point of sale. It also provides detailed guidance on appropriate packaging, for example restricting nutritional and health claims and images which idealise formula use. </p>
<h2>The follow-on fallacy</h2>
<p>The Formula Marketing Bill has long been needed, and is of vital importance to ensuring the health of both babies and mothers. However, 26 years after the WHO code was signed by the UK, it has taken a <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-16/debates/552A05C8-5D1C-4BDB-BB2A-03C37A034DD4/FeedingProductsForBabiesAndChildren(AdvertisingAndPromotion)">private members’ bill</a> to put this issue on parliament’s agenda – and even then its second reading has been delayed by a month already.</p>
<p>The provisions of the bill seek to establish a new infant and young child nutrition agency which would ensure that infant formula and packaging was regulated to optimise child health. This includes licensing feeding products suitable for children aged under 36 months, to prevent unnecessary ingredients being added, and to ensure that packaging does not undermine breastfeeding. Those who breach the law by selling unlicensed products could be fined or imprisoned for up to six months.</p>
<p>Other important clauses include one that would allow plain packaging of infant formula, and ban terms that <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/monitoringuk17">can confuse parents</a>, such as “follow-on milk”. These steps will help parents understand that the legally required recipe for infant formula results in minimal variation between brands, saving them money, and protecting them from unverifiable claims. Alongside this, the bill also seeks to comprehensively restrict other types of advertising and promotion of feeding products for babies and infants – for example, by restricting formula industry social media, parenting clubs and classes, and helplines.</p>
<p>We need to stop wasting time and make this bill law.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74794/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aimee Grant receives funding from the National Institute for Health Research, the Wellcome Trust ISSF Public Health Scheme and the Welsh Crucible Small Grant Scheme. She has also undertaken paid consultancy for Public Health Wales NHS Trust, where she previously held the role of Senior Health Promotion Practitioner. She is affiliated with the Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) Wales Cymru research committee, where she previously held the role of Research and Policy Officer.</span></em></p>Parents need to know the truth about formula milk.Aimee Grant, Research Associate - infant feeding, smoking, stigma, class, identity, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/739102017-03-10T02:03:14Z2017-03-10T02:03:14ZGoodbye glamour-puss and rugged hero: smokers lose brand identity with plain cigarette packaging<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160248/original/image-20170310-3700-1s4evjf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People’s sense of self is partly determined by the groups to which they belong: "I'm a smoker". </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/moriza/5630075068/in/photolist-9zvBaN-4HC1HB-9w8VH-eyfdvD-8KEBE3-diGari-8hzxFK-diG9h4-diG79L-RG1Tbw-HmMWNA-3Wm4s-oc8YE-61cz6f-oc8YC-ouvpJE-5Ljc4i-kVfpmW-sFNZou-7B8U1J-k9qLX-dED9FM-pCyovj-dPoFvw-7V7Nmc-DRC6R3-dgbMEw-8daDd6-7zXPki-hsH7A-namo6m-gjNAP-9jU4KX-9jXay5-qvC4eo-aoXjyk-oc8YJ-7x4TvY-8Y8vwP-p5Md2n-qgkE5L-bDJgTq-ehvbmM-cX7KSS-dQjW6W-67wPDX-qvC45W-pabtjJ-6ebyE4-aFgrtP">moriza/flickr </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Plain cigarette packaging has been a great Australian success story. There’s now strong <a href="http://ris.pmc.gov.au/2016/02/26/tobacco-plain-packaging/">evidence</a> that a record decline in smoking rates occurred soon after plain packaging was introduced in Australia in 2012. In fact, these early impacts were <a href="http://www.tobaccopreventioncessation.com/Refuting-tobacco-industry-funded-research-empirical-data-shows-decline-in-smoking-prevalence-following-introduction-of-plain-packaging-in-Australia,60650,0,2.html">greater than expected</a>. </p>
<p>We know the policy worked, but what’s less clear is why it worked so well.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853217300093">latest research</a> tested the idea that part of the reason plain packaging has been such a success is because it strips away smoker’s sense of identification with fellow smokers of their brand. </p>
<p>We showed that reductions in brand identity following the introduction of plain packaging predicted lower smoking behaviour. These effects were robust even after we controlled for the increased salience of warning labels and smokers’ prior addiction levels.</p>
<h2>Cigarette brands have social meaning</h2>
<p>Before the introduction of plain packaging, <a href="http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-13-18">many experts</a> predicted plain packs would have limited effects on established smokers, but would deter young people from starting. <a href="http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/24420/1/Moodie_et_al_2012_PHRC_PlainPacks.pdf">Others emphasised</a> that any effects for established smokers would occur because plain packs would make smokers attend more to the health warning labels (made larger at the same time as plain packaging was introduced).</p>
<p>There is <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/11/15/tobaccocontrol-2016-053166.short">evidence for both</a> of <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/2/181">these explanations</a>. But my colleagues and I argued that, for established smokers, branded packs don’t just look pretty and distract from the ugly warning labels, they are also full of social meaning that helps smokers define themselves and their smoking behaviour in a positive light.</p>
<p>In making this claim, we drew on some key ideas from established social psychological theory, in particular the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12061/abstract">social identity approach</a>. </p>
<p>The first idea is that people’s sense of self is powerfully determined not just by their individual characteristics (like their personality) but also by the groups to which they belong (“I’m a Queenslander”, “I’m a smoker”, “I’m a feminist”, “I’m a Holden man”). </p>
<p>The second idea is that people usually seek to positively define themselves and often find creative ways to do so.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159478/original/image-20170306-908-9qmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159478/original/image-20170306-908-9qmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159478/original/image-20170306-908-9qmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159478/original/image-20170306-908-9qmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159478/original/image-20170306-908-9qmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159478/original/image-20170306-908-9qmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159478/original/image-20170306-908-9qmq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Advertising suggests smokers of this cigarette brand are slim and glamorous.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/29069717@N02/25962631403/in/photolist-FyegMV-dJyMi9-4E3adY-FhfL6-9E5X1y-6CrMau-9M83jF-9MaPaY-4Bfwa8-5eSpna-5eSpk2-a8o8v8-38F9Yc-3akKYs-6U6Gpz-bVu5ub-9FH1oj-bVu5wC-9FH29G-3soMw7-DWUfh3-StrcPk-ax8zb-RqYPYa-PBePJb-D92kAw-SEMoXv-Ehom81-StBoEP-SrbS63-SBirgy-Rof4Df-SEXPDe-SrbX5m-RqYNZr-RqYNRk-Strd8M-awK9w4-2TjhxJ-56N4EE-3akKT7-3ejkLY-3gMWUc-66Ew2v-b5R8pp-9E5YmL-6mj6Zu-23iQYK-6e5PNH-6YN2km">29069717@N02/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is important because defining yourself positively as a smoker has become a hard sell <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.short">in recent years</a>. While smoking was once seen as a <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30537.Cigarettes_Are_Sublime">mark of sophistication</a>, smokers are now often stereotyped as <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10810730305723?scroll=top&needAccess=true">unhealthy and dirty</a>, even <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casp.896/abstract">among smokers themselves</a>. </p>
<p>One way people might respond to this is to identify as a smoker of a particular brand. Doing so deflects the negative connotations of the category “smoker”. Tobacco companies <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17475750601027089?queryID=%24%7BresultBean.queryID%7D">get this</a>, and use brand identities to subvert the dirtiness of smoking by appealing to the minty-freshness of a slender, smiling woman; or the rugged outsider status of a cowboy. </p>
<p>You can guess where the story goes from here. We predicted that by stripping away branding, plain packs take away the established smokers’ sense of positive brand identity that was helping to maintain their smoking behaviour. </p>
<p>It’s important to note here that media advertising for tobacco has been banned in Australia since 1992. In effect this meant that branded packaging was the last avenue for signalling to smokers themselves and to others about what brands mean. </p>
<h2>Smokers’ changing sense of identity</h2>
<p>We <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853217300093">ran an online survey</a> of 178 smokers before and after plain packaging was introduced. On both occasions we asked participants about their sense of social identification with fellow smokers of their brand (such as, “I identify with the group of Marlboro smokers”), the stereotypes they linked with smokers of their brand, and their smoking behaviour and quit intentions. </p>
<p>As we predicted, we found positive brand stereotypes, people’s brand identities, and smoking behaviour all decreased after the introduction of plain packaging. But for the first time, we also demonstrated these last two things were related: reductions in brand identity predicted people smoking less, attempting to quit and intending to quit in the future. </p>
<p>We found these associations were robust even after we statistically controlled for the increased salience of warning labels, how heavily people smoked to begin with, and other characteristics like age, gender and socio-economic status.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159479/original/image-20170306-898-a9a2hh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159479/original/image-20170306-898-a9a2hh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=891&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159479/original/image-20170306-898-a9a2hh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=891&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159479/original/image-20170306-898-a9a2hh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=891&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159479/original/image-20170306-898-a9a2hh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1120&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159479/original/image-20170306-898-a9a2hh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1120&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159479/original/image-20170306-898-a9a2hh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1120&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Malboro man’ created an association between a cigarette brand and rugged, outdoor men.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/february-2015-berlin-large-scale-cowboy-279657575?src=mzDzi4C_C4QaF44Gzs96Tw-1-0">360b / Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finally, we predicted and found evidence that people who identified most strongly with their brand before the policy change experienced the sharpest declines in brand identity, and this went on to predict lower smoking behaviour. This last point makes sense: if cigarette brands weren’t particularly meaningful to a smoker’s sense of self to begin with, then we wouldn’t expect plain packaging to have much of an effect for them.</p>
<p>This evidence is an important contribution to understanding why plain packaging works. Our findings support the idea that plain packaging decreases smoking in established smokers because of a loss of brand identity. </p>
<p>Of course a limitation to the study is that, even though its longitudinal, it’s not experimental. So it’s possible there’s something else we’re not measuring that’s causing the declines in identity and smoking behaviour. </p>
<p>However, by examining changes over time, and controlling for the salience of warning labels, people’s age and levels of prior addiction, we took account of the most obvious alternative explanations for our results. </p>
<p>More broadly, our findings are a good example of how the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12061/abstract">social identity approach</a> is proving to be a powerful tool for understanding health behaviours and for developing novel “<a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:270558">social cures</a>” that harness group processes to drive positive behavioural change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73910/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Webb received funding from an ad-hoc grant from the Australian National University Research School of Psychology to undertake this research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Skorich receives funding from the Australian Research Council, as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow, attached to an Australian Laureate Fellowship. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tegan Cruwys receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Cigarette brands present images of slender, stylish women and strong, independent men. Plain packaging breaks this positive brand identity for some smokers.Hugh Webb, PhD candidate (submitted), Australian National UniversityDaniel Skorich, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandTegan Cruwys, Australian Research Council Fellow: Discovery Early Career Research Award, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/682952016-11-07T20:13:55Z2016-11-07T20:13:55ZWhy Africa should resist the power of Big Sugar to undermine public health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144825/original/image-20161107-4694-1tpj0hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa's proposed tax on sugary drinks will help improve public health despite the overwrought opposition from the industry.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shardayyy/7539177816">Shardayyy/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The South African government has <a href="http://www.fin24.com/Budget/the-secrets-out-sa-to-get-a-sugar-tax-20160224">decided to tax sugary drinks</a> to help cut excess sugar consumption, which is <a href="https://theconversation.com/obesity-why-south-africans-need-to-can-soft-drinks-50424">contributing to a burgeoning epidemic</a> of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This follows the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/mexico-soda-tax-sugar-obesity-health">lead of Mexico</a> and the US <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/23/491104093/berkeleys-soda-tax-appears-to-cut-consumption-of-sugary-drinks">city of Berkeley</a>, where <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-world-can-learn-from-mexicos-tax-on-sugar-sweetened-drinks-56696">results</a> have been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/mexican-soda-tax-cuts-sales-first-year">very positive</a>.</p>
<p>In Mexico, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002158">research predicts</a> a win-win outcome: it may greatly decrease disease and death from diabetes and cardiovascular disease while reducing health care costs.</p>
<p>What can be expected in South Africa is overwrought and highly emotive opposition from the sugary drink industry. The tax has been described as <a href="http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-08-31-sas-proposed-sugar-tax-claims-about-calories-job-losses-checked/#.WCBCIuh97IU">“murderous” and “highly discriminatory”</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hSmqJMNa3gQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Coca-Cola Beverages Africa chairman Phil Gutsche denounces the sugar tax as murderous and discriminatory.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This opposition to an effective measure to protect and improve the public’s health occurs in the context of a seven-decade battle between public health (David) and unhealthy industries (Goliaths). During that time the tobacco, junk food, sugar-sweetened beverage and alcohol industries have become the drivers of the major non-communicable diseases (cancers, lung disease, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases) that now <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en/">dominate the global health landscape</a>.</p>
<p>The junk food, sugary drink and alcohol industries claim to be part of the solution. The solution requires them to help improve their consumers’ health by decreasing advertising to children, reducing levels of salt, fat and sugar in their products, and labelling food honestly and clearly. These are all measures they are convinced are in conflict with their responsibility to make money for their shareholders. </p>
<p>How can these industries be part of the solution in these circumstances? Expecting them to support effective health measures is like expecting the Springboks to support the Wallabies. </p>
<h2>Why industry is not part of the solution</h2>
<p>In 2008, as chair of Australia’s <a href="http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/home-1">Preventative Health Task Force</a>, I did think they might be part of the solution. Our task was to recommend ways to reduce the burden of death and disease due to obesity, tobacco and alcohol. </p>
<p>Big Tobacco was denied any influence on our work and the results have been <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-29/smoking-rates-at-record-lows-as-number-of-smokers-almost-halves/7886316">spectacularly effective</a>: <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-slow-burn-devastating-impact-of-tobacco-plain-packs-51727">plain packaging</a>, <a href="http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/13-2-tobacco-taxes-in-australia">annual increases in tobacco taxes</a> and one of the <a href="http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-13-international-comparisons-of-prevalence-of-sm">lowest rates of smoking</a> in the world. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Big Food and Big Alcohol were allowed to be “in the room”. Over the past eight years I have seen them undermine, obstruct and fight tooth and nail every potentially effective policy to diminish death and disease related to overconsumption of their products. I no longer believe they can be part of the solution.</p>
<p>How do these industries oppose the protection and improvement of people’s health? They use a sophisticated long-term approach of tracking, monitoring and attacking key researchers and advocates, attacking and undermining the science of public health and clinicians, influencing bureaucratic and political decision-makers, creating industry front groups, donating to political parties, sponsoring sporting and cultural groups and funding research that is much more likely to produce results that support their own arguments. </p>
<p>They are particularly adept at promoting self-regulation. With this tactic – called <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp">regulatory capture</a> – they introduce a form of self-regulation, such as an industry code of practice. </p>
<p>These approaches have been found to be “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24713622">relatively vague and permissive</a>”, ineffective, and to result in relatively small measurable effects. And, of course, they are non-binding and impossible to enforce. </p>
<p>A prime example of this occurred in 2009, when the <a href="http://www.afgc.org.au/our-expertise/health-nutrition-and-scientific-affairs/advertising-to-children/">Australian Food and Grocery Council</a> and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1035_service.pdf">Quick Service Restaurant Industry</a> introduced “responsible marketing” self-regulation. Both voluntary initiatives promised not to advertise unhealthy food products to children under 12.</p>
<p>At face value this looked like a great initiative. In reality it had <a href="https://theconversation.com/side-stepping-the-censors-the-failure-of-self-regulation-for-junk-food-advertising-2006">no proven effect</a>. Ingeniously designed, these promises encompassed only children’s viewing times – which is not actually when children watch most of their TV. </p>
<p>The industry initiative “captured” any potential for public regulation and resulted in years of continued saturation advertising of junk food and sugary drinks to Australian children. It was a brilliant, but very unhealthy, tactical ploy by the junk food industry. Beware of the industry association bearing gifts.</p>
<p>A related concern is the global consolidation of transnational corporations. An example is the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/taranurin/2016/10/10/its-final-ab-inbev-closes-on-deal-to-buy-sabmiller/#43a0dc6937d6">recent merger</a> between the two largest beer producers, AB InBev and SABMiller. </p>
<p>The capacity of these corporate Goliaths to undermine the public’s health and to influence or control health policy is becoming stronger with each merger and takeover. In Africa particularly, governments are susceptible given that their economies are often much smaller than the corporations they are dealing with.</p>
<h2>A way to provide healthy sponsorship</h2>
<p>Using taxes to diminish the consumption of unhealthy products has been highly successful. The <a href="https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/media-and-resources/publications/the-story-of-vichealth">Victorian Health Promotion Foundation</a> started this 30 years ago using a dedicated tax on tobacco. This was used to replace sport and arts sponsorships that tobacco companies had provided.</p>
<p>Sponsorship by <a href="http://www.quit.org.au/">Quit</a> – an organisation dedicated to helping people give up cigarette smoking – replaced harmful tobacco sponsorship in sport. A sugary drinks tax in South Africa can be used in this way to replace sponsorship by promoters of unhealthy drinks.</p>
<p>The sugary drinks industry in South Africa <a href="http://businesstech.co.za/news/government/134146/sugar-tax-will-cost-south-africa-economy-r14-billion-and-push-the-country-into-recession/">will claim</a> the new tax will wipe out jobs and slash profits. We know, however, from experience in Australia and elsewhere that these industries know how to protect profits. When cigarette taxes are increased, tobacco companies cynically increase their prices – and then blame the government.</p>
<p>The sugary drinks industry will throw everything into stopping the sugar tax in South Africa, just as they tried in Mexico and Berkeley. They do not want <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-sugary-drinks-tax-could-prevent-thousands-of-heart-attacks-and-strokes-and-save-1-600-lives-56439">sugar taxes spreading</a> across the world. It’s the same motive that drove Big Tobacco to <a href="https://theconversation.com/cluster-bomb-of-new-research-explodes-tobacco-industry-lies-about-plain-packs-38978">fight so hard</a> against plain packaging in Australia. </p>
<p>The introduction of a tax in South Africa might provoke the ire of the sugary drinks industry, but it will decrease death and disease <a href="https://theconversation.com/rejection-of-sugar-tax-is-based-on-faulty-logic-about-the-poor-50230">among the poorest</a>, while providing much-needed finances to improve health and sponsor healthy sports. It’s worth the ire!</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68295/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Moodie has received funding from the Australian Department of Health, and chaired the National Preventative Health Taskforce from 2008-2011. He chairs the GAVI Alliance Evaluation Advisory Committee and his University receives sitting fees. He has worked with WHO as an adviser over many years. He is currently on the WHO expert panel on Health Promotion.</span></em></p>The decision to tax sugary drinks in South Africa faces furious industry opposition, but global experience shows industry cannot be trusted to put public health before profits.Rob Moodie, Professor of Public Health, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/671562016-11-01T19:07:58Z2016-11-01T19:07:58ZHow the tobacco industry is gaming Australian health regulations<p>Australia’s tough tobacco regulations are acting as a catalyst for the industry to develop sophisticated marketing practices. These companies are gaming the system by anticipating regulatory impact and then using unregulated marketing elements to overcome it.</p>
<p>Australia has been a guiding light for countries looking to improve public health through the effective regulation of tobacco, which remains the world’s biggest cause of preventable illness and death, and <a href="http://www.cancer.org.au/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/smoking-and-tobacco-control/">still kills around 15,000 Australians annually.</a> </p>
<p>December 2012 saw the implementation of Australia’s innovative plain packaging legislation, this was followed by four 12.5% annual tobacco tax excise increases. As a result the number of Australian smokers <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-kff">has fallen to a record low</a>.</p>
<p>However the tobacco industry has used several strategies, including price reduction, brand differentiation and promoting the idea of healthier cigarettes, to undermine Australia’s new regulatory environment.</p>
<h2>Pricing for packets</h2>
<p>To offset price hikes manufacturers have expanded lower priced product ranges, with new ultra low priced brands. One example of this is the British American Tobacco Australia’s (BATA) Just Smokes, which sells <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SRJ-09-2015-0127">for around 70% of the premium brand prices</a>. BATA has also shifted Rothmans, previously a premium brand, into the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.13536/full">economy segment by cutting its price by more than 30%</a>. </p>
<p>Another pricing initiative is twin pack promotion. Most consumers recognise that progressively larger packs offer progressively lower unit prices - a lower cost per single item or single pack. </p>
<p>This used to be true for tobacco, with the largest cartons (usually with 200 cigarettes) offering best value. However, since 2012 discounted twin packs represent best value. </p>
<p>A supermarket twin pack, per cigarette price, is up to 10% cheaper than single packs - effectively discouraging single pack purchases. Australia’s leading brand Winfield twin pack, per cigarette price, is equal to <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SRJ-09-2015-0127">or below that of larger cartons</a>. </p>
<p>Regulatory price increases are financial deterrents to smoking. The low price branding and discounting strategies in Australia are clear attempts to get around these, and reduce smokers’ financial motivation to quit or cut down.</p>
<p>Heavily discounted twin packs also teach smokers, through financial reward and penalty, to <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SRJ-09-2015-0127">buy twin rather than single packs</a>. This is of particular <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251838?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">concern since research</a> shows that larger purchases trigger higher consumption. </p>
<p>In 2014 the industry claimed tobacco consumption <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.13536/full">had actually increased after plain packaging</a>. While <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-plain-packaging-evaluation">this was disproved</a>, it suggests big tobacco anticipated increased consumption as smokers switched to twin pack purchase behaviour.</p>
<h2>New tobacco products and promotions</h2>
<p>Plain packaging was expected to restrict tobacco brands. However, after 2012 manufacturers introduced numerous new products, and brand ranges actually expanded.</p>
<p>For example, Australia’s leading brand Winfield <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/Publishing.nsf/Content/FF8277D31BDF9D6CCA257BF0001DC808/$File/British_American_Tobacco_Australia_Limited_Australia.PDF">supported more than 20 brand variants in 2015-2016</a> compared <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.13536/full">to just 12 in 2012-2013</a>. Brand differentiation is <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/4070618?selectedversion=NBD43603045">a proven marketing approach</a> for generating greater sales, with each variant targeting a specific consumer market segment.</p>
<p>Since plain packaging was introduced, tobacco companies have varied the names of brands as well. Names have evolved to include the information previously covered by packaging, such as colour and new product features. For example, Dunhill Infinite is now Dunhill Infinite White + Taste Flow Filter. </p>
<p>Today around 80% of Australia’s leading brands’ variant names include a colour, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.13536/full">compared to less than half before plain packaging</a>. Tobacco companies are also using colours to mislead consumers that certain product ranges are “healthier” options. </p>
<p>A universal colour code has been promoted by the industry <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21565661">in which smokers interpret lighter colours</a> (white, silver, gold, yellow and blue) as being less harmful, and darker colours (red and black) as more harmful. Before plain packaging colour hues were a pack design component, now <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.13536/full">the myth of healthier tobacco options</a> is perpetuated by colour names. This is disturbing from a public health perspective as it represents industry efforts to lessen smokers’ health motivations for quitting.</p>
<h2>The effects of clever marketing</h2>
<p>Australia’s tobacco regulations have significantly reduced smoking. However, their impact would be greater without unscrupulous industry initiatives to overcome and thwart them. </p>
<p>Industry response to plain packaging and excise increases have not been simple marketing efforts to increase sales, but illustrate cynical attempts to reduce financial and health motivations for quitting, and to encourage smokers to smoke more. Australian regulators, and those in other countries, should therefore consider further regulation. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SRJ-09-2015-0127">Research suggests</a> that <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.13536/full">future effective controls</a> might include: </p>
<ul>
<li>Introducing a standard fixed per stick price for all cigarettes - preventing differentiation by price and cheaper brand options</li>
<li> Prohibiting price variation by pack size - preventing volume discounting or twin pack promotion that encourage smokers to make larger purchases and smoke more</li>
<li>Restricting pack size to a maximum of 10 or 20 cigarettes to limit increased consumption associated with larger pack sizes</li>
<li>Banning colour variant names - removing colour-health connotations </li>
<li>Restricting brand variant ranges, for example to one variant or representation per brand, to limit the way tobacco companies use differentiation to increase sales.</li>
</ul>
<p>The tobacco industry is committed to gaming regulations, like plain packaging and tax excise increases, and developing approaches to undermine their impact. However, the Australian government is equally committed to reducing the national <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-kff">adult daily smoking rate to 10% by 2018</a>. The additional tobacco controls outlined above should help the government achieve this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67156/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Greenland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Big tobacco companies have found a way around plain packaging with clever marketing techniques that undermine Australian regulations.Steven Greenland, Associate professor, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/668542016-10-17T12:38:32Z2016-10-17T12:38:32ZBig Tobacco’s dirty tricks in opposing plain packaging<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141773/original/image-20161014-30244-16wd4bs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tobacco companies want to sell you cigarettes – today, tomorrow and for the foreseeable future. Whether you’re at the tobacco counter or out with friends, glitzy cigarette packaging is a really important part of their sales pitch. <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80305188/The-importance-of-the-cigarette-pack-in-the-tobacco-industrys-own-words">Tobacco companies are aware of this</a>. It’s why they are so opposed to their cigarettes being put in plain packaging.</p>
<p>But it isn’t just tobacco companies that are against plain packaging. In the UK, where plain packaging was introduced in 2016, <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Plain_Packaging_in_the_UK:_Tobacco_Industry_Built_Alliances">business associations, think tanks</a> and <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Plain_Packaging_in_the_UK:_Tobacco_Industry_Funded_Third_Party_Campaigns">civil society groups</a> publicly campaigned against the policy and <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Plain_Packaging_in_the_UK:_Tobacco_Industry_Funded_Research,_Expert_Opinion_and_Public_Relations">academics, research consultants and public relations and law firms</a> variously wrote lengthy reports and lobbied the government. </p>
<p>But why would these organisations lobby against plain packaging? On looking into these opposition groups, our recent <a href="http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/10/e012634.abstract">research</a> gives a clear answer. Opponents of plain packaging tend to have links to the tobacco industry. So much so that <a href="http://tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Plain_Packaging_in_the_UK:_TCRG_Research_on_Policy_Opposition_2011-2013">three-quarters</a> of organisations identified in our study had financial links to tobacco companies. </p>
<p>Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Decades of research into political activity by the tobacco industry has shown that <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087389">“third parties”</a> are used to campaign against tobacco-control policies. Health advocates are aware of this. In 2005, the World Health Organisation’s <a href="http://www.who.int/fctc/en/">Framework Convention on Tobacco Control</a> committed the countries that signed the convention to protect tobacco policy from interference by the tobacco industry and, crucially, groups linked to them. In response, in 2011, the UK government committed to publishing details of any policy meetings with tobacco companies and the Department of Health routinely requests disclosure of tobacco industry links. So far so good. In doing so, the UK sets a strong example. </p>
<h2>Third party interference</h2>
<p>But our research shows how “third party” opposition to tobacco control policies extends tobacco industry interference beyond this realm of government. In a three-year period which included the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products">2012 government consultation on plain packaging</a>, 88% of research and 78% of public communications opposing plain packaging were carried out by organisations with financial links to tobacco companies (see figure 1). And public and retailer campaigns funded by tobacco companies to mobilise opposition to plain packaging generated <a href="http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/10/e012634.full">98% of the more than 420,000</a> negative postcard and petition submissions to the consultation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141630/original/image-20161013-31333-bb8pvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141630/original/image-20161013-31333-bb8pvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141630/original/image-20161013-31333-bb8pvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141630/original/image-20161013-31333-bb8pvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141630/original/image-20161013-31333-bb8pvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141630/original/image-20161013-31333-bb8pvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141630/original/image-20161013-31333-bb8pvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 1.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In this way, ideas and arguments that come from tobacco companies and their research spill into public spaces. Once there, they can influence the public and political mood on life-saving tobacco control policies and create a misleading impression of diverse and widespread opposition. This <a href="http://bit.ly/2e98fYu">is known</a> in the world of political science as “conflict expansion”. And the potential effects are significant. When widespread, these “third party” activities can work to delay and even prevent policies: it took four years to get from consultation to implementation in the UK. </p>
<p>This wouldn’t be so serious if organisations and tobacco companies were open about their relationships. But, in many cases, links were not easy for the research team to detect. Of 150 examples of public communications, less than 20% explicitly acknowledged tobacco industry connections. And, while academics and research consultants tended to clearly report funding sources, “third parties” promoting their research in press releases, news stories and letters to government, frequently did not. </p>
<p>If they were open about their financial relationships with tobacco firms, business and civil society organisations would give the public, politicians and officials the opportunity to scrutinise their arguments and evidence in context. In the case of plain packaging, a lack of openness masked these links and lent credibility to claims that the policy <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Countering_Industry_Arguments_Against_Plain_Packaging:_No_Evidence_Plain_Packaging_Will_Work">lacked evidence</a> and would <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Countering_Industry_Arguments_Against_Plain_Packaging:_It_will_Lead_to_Increased_Smuggling">increase the trade in illicit cigarettes</a> – claims which have been shown to be unfounded by both <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/Suppl_2.toc">peer-reviewed research</a> and <a href="https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bat-v-doh.judgment.pdf">by the High Court</a> in Britain. Now, as more countries move to <a href="http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/207478/1/9789241565226_eng.pdf">introduce plain packaging</a>, “third party” transparency remains an issue. </p>
<p>In order to help countries guard against tobacco industry interference, awareness can be raised of the effects of their activities on public and political debates. And steps could be taken to make their relationships with tobacco companies clearer. A compulsory register of tobacco companies’ memberships, political activities and associated spending would be a strong first move. </p>
<p>There is strong global commitment to addressing the problem of tobacco industry interference. Parties to the framework convention <a href="http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/sessions/cop7/en/">meet in India</a> in November amid concerns about this issue, and the message to the tobacco industry <a href="http://www.who.int/fctc/mediacentre/news/2016/cop7-transparency-yes.tobacco-industry-interference-no/en/">from the WHO</a> is clear: “The world understands who you are and what you do, and is determined to stamp out the global plague which you do so much to spread.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66854/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jenny Hatchard receives research funding from Cancer Research UK and from the UK Clinical Research Collaboration as a member of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies.</span></em></p>Hidden links between tobacco companies and tobacco control opponents may be hindering plain packaging legislation around the world.Jenny Hatchard, Political Scientist, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578952016-04-20T03:37:13Z2016-04-20T03:37:13ZHow might Big Tobacco react to a rise in cigarette excise?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119182/original/image-20160419-1269-1lyaj9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Big Tobacco will go to extraordinary lengths to ensure moves to quell smoking rates fail.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There now appears to be bipartisan recognition in Australia of the political stench of cigarettes. Labor governments have taken a dim view of smoking for at least a decade, but now even the Liberal Party is joining the attack.</p>
<p>As the campaign donations from the tobacco industry <a href="http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-10-tobacco-industry/10-22-donations-to-political-parties">dry up</a>, the Turnbull government has set its sights on a product that, thanks to its unfortunate tendency to kill off its natural constituency, makes for an obvious target. The government is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-seizes-on-reports-the-government-is-planning-a-tobacco-tax-hike-20160414-go6vps.html">expected to announce</a> a rise in tobacco excise in the coming federal budget.</p>
<p>The current taxation debate is just a small part of a much wider effort to curb smoking rates. And with every successful legislative change in Australia, other nations are increasingly emboldened to take on an industry once considered too politically powerful and dangerous.</p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-olive-revolution-australias-plain-packaging-leads-the-world-8856">plain-packaging laws</a> are already viewed as a model for Ireland, the UK and France. Its taxes – among the highest in the world – have <a href="http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-3-prevalence-of-smoking-adults">routinely been shown</a> to cut smoking rates to historic lows. Its citizens now overwhelmingly <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129549848">accept</a> bans on passive smoking.</p>
<p>Still, Big Tobacco will never give up its fight against regulation and taxes. It knows that for every day it delays change, it saves millions in profits. As such, it relies on tactics of deceit, delay and frustration, which it has developed and refined over half a century. </p>
<p>But it also knows that it can’t make its argument directly. Instead, it relies on rhetorically gifted proxies. To that end, Big Tobacco has collaborated with a global web of friendly lobby groups, <a href="https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=yycm0102">researchers</a> and free-market think-tanks, such as the <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Australia:_Funding_Think_Tanks_and_Hiring_Independent_Experts">Institute of Public Affairs</a> (IPA). Each proxy is expected to <a href="https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=szjn0086">push an agenda</a>, such as suggesting that research on tobacco smoke is “junk science” and critics of tobacco are “biased”.</p>
<p>Once the research has been completed, there are always media outlets willing to dutifully repeat the industry’s claims, which are used to build a narrative of the “nanny” state repeatedly kicking the mature and informed smoker.</p>
<h2>Capitalism and freedom – for smokers</h2>
<p>In the West, the freedom-of-choice argument has been at the heart of most of Big Tobacco’s campaigns since the 1970s. It’s a powerful idea, but it deliberately <a href="https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=mhnk0104">ignores the issue</a> of <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Countering_Industry_Arguments_Against_Plain_Packaging:_No_Evidence_Plain_Packaging_Will_Work">child and passive smoking</a>.</p>
<p>As such, Big Tobacco primarily relies on the argument that the state is trampling on personal liberty. When plain-packaging laws were being debated in Australia in 2010 – the first such laws in the world – the industry and its allies leapt into action.</p>
<p>The resultant advertising campaign was designed to portray the government and anti-smoking campaigners as part of a “nanny state” that was determined to tell adults how to live their lives. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SYbRumBfMpU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An anti-plain-packaging advertisement.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>(Stuck in) Nineteen Eighty-Four</h2>
<p>The liberty argument may be a legitimate point of debate. But Big Tobacco also contended that plain-packaging laws would fail to deter people from smoking.</p>
<p>The IPA <a href="https://ipa.org.au/publications/1797/plain-packaging-may-require-up-to-3.4-billion-taxpayer-gift-annually-to-big-tobacco-and-film-companies/pg/7">pointed out</a> the tremendous monetary value of packaging, and Australia’s vulnerability to legal challenges that would cost billions of taxpayer dollars.</p>
<p>But, later, a senior IPA member <a href="http://press.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Volume+21,+Number+1,+2014/11311/davidson.xhtml">released a study</a> that showed spending on tobacco products had – controlling for other factors – increased following the plain-packaging laws’ passage.</p>
<p>Writers in the Murdoch press reported both stories, unaware of their contradictory nature.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qTcnLa462Es?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Media Watch on how the plain-packaging studies were reported.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>(Big Tobacco’s) crime and punishment</h2>
<p>Another line of attack suggests that high taxes on cigarettes cause crime. </p>
<p>In 2015, the tobacco industry commissioned KPMG to study the effects of cigarette taxes on <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smoking-taxes-make-cigarette-smuggling-an-increasingly-attractive-option-20150515-gh31ch.html">smuggling and black market sales</a>. Unsurprisingly, the report said exactly what the tobacco industry wanted it to – going so far as to suggest that one in seven cigarettes smoked in Australia were smuggled. </p>
<p>As with all industry-funded “research”, government critics were keen to regurgitate the findings.</p>
<p>This is a distraction tactic. It is true that very high taxes, or a prohibition, will create a black market. It is also beside the point of plain packaging – which is to reduce smoking, while allowing for some free choice, provided it is informed and adult. Such laws have <a href="http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-1-a-brief-history-of-tobacco-smoking-in-australi">proved successful</a> to that end.</p>
<p>The tobacco industry, insisting that we look anywhere but at them, wants to repaint a health issue as a <a href="http://newsroom.border.gov.au/releases/major-strike-delivered-to-illegal-cigarette-smuggling">law-enforcement one</a>. </p>
<p>However, the tobacco industry is deeply <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/31/duncancampbell">hypocritical on smuggling</a>. It systematically floods key foreign markets with its product, in turn <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tobacco-industry-accused-of-fueling-cigarette-smuggling-to-boost-profits-10287003.html">facilitating smuggling</a> in Western markets. The tactic allows it to claim plain-packaging laws and taxes cause the same crime <a href="http://applications.emro.who.int/dsaf/EMRPUB_2012_EN_1372.pdf">it creates</a>.</p>
<h2>The heart of darkness</h2>
<p>Big Tobacco fights in this way because of what it stands to lose. </p>
<p>So, the industry of death continues to exact its toll. It knew that people died from smoking and passive inhalation decades before it conceded the point. It knew of children taking up smoking – it even <a href="https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0008.pdf">helped them do so</a>. It complains of smuggling while being the biggest source of the problem. </p>
<p>Big Tobacco does these things because it is afraid. Imagine the profits lost should other countries adopt similar messages. <a href="http://www.worldlungfoundation.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/20439/pid/6858">Tens of billions</a> every year are at stake. </p>
<p>In the tobacco wars, the strategic importance of Australia is critical. Big Tobacco will go to extraordinary lengths to ensure moves to quell smoking fail.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57895/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Rennie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Big Tobacco relies on tactics of deceit, delay and frustration which it has developed and refined over half a century.George Rennie, PhD Candidate, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/525412015-12-18T05:04:50Z2015-12-18T05:04:50ZAustralia’s plain packaging win over Philip Morris should take the heat off ISDS<p>Christmas has come early for advocates of tobacco control, with tobacco giant Philip Morris’s lawsuit against Australian plain packaging legislation <a href="http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/5">ruled invalid</a>. Australia will not have to pay any damages to Philip Morris. Indeed, it is likely that Philip Morris will be ordered to reimburse the Australian government’s costs in defending this suit. </p>
<p>This outcome is also an early Christmas present for defenders of much maligned investor state dispute settlement (ISDS). The Philip Morris case had become the bogeyman of ISDS. It was held up as a reason to <a href="https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/tpp/tpp-text-released/the-dirtiest-deal-ever?t=4QtnteW">object to ISDS clauses in free trade agreements</a>. </p>
<p>This is understandable. A tobacco company sued a government for enacting laws designed to improve public health. They used a little understood mechanism - ISDS – to sue, despite having lost in Australian courts. International trade law disputes rarely have such a clear-cut villain. It is natural to distrust the mechanisms they relied on. However, this victory - in the first ISDS claim brought against Australia - should allay those concerns.</p>
<h2>The award</h2>
<p>This determination is a victory for common sense. Philip Morris argued that the plain packaging legislation - which prevents them from using their trademarks on the packages of their cigarettes and in advertising – was “expropriatory”. That is it was akin to the government seizing their assets without compensation. Further, Philip Morris argued they were entitled to compensation for lost profits. I have previously noted that <a href="https://theconversation.com/sovereign-risk-fears-around-tpp-are-overblown-39865">this position is nonsense</a>. It has no basis in law. Philip Morris were seeking suspension of the plain packaging legislation and compensation of “<a href="http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1476">an amount to be quantified but of the order of billions of Australian dollars</a>.”] They will get nothing.</p>
<p>In a typically truculent press release Philip Morris <a href="http://www.financialpost.com/news/business-wire/detail.html?b=www.businesswire.com%2Fnews%2Fsyndication%2F20151217006627%2Fen%2FPhilip-Morris-Asia-Limited-Comments-Tribunal%25E2%2580%2599s-Decision">continued its attack on plain packaging</a>. Its grandiose claim that the “real point” of the dispute went to “the essence of the rule of law” is correct; though perhaps not in the way they intend. </p>
<p>Ultimately this dispute turned on a question of jurisdiction. Australia argued that Philip Morris was not entitled to bring ISDS proceedings. It argued that Philip Morris had improperly made a foreign “investment” so as to avail itself of these proceedings. It also argued that Philip Morris <a href="http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1476">misrepresented the nature of its investment to the Australian government</a>. Further Australia argued that the case constituted an abuse of right. For these reasons Australia argued that the case could not proceed. In essence Australia was asking the tribunal to find that Philip Morris had - to use a colloquialism - attempted to “game” the system. That jurisdictional argument succeeded. </p>
<p>While the specifics are not yet published, it is clear that the tribunal has rejected Philip Morris’ capacity to bring this suit. Multinational companies are not able to use free trade agreements and investment treaties to do an end run around the proper processes. This is entirely in keeping with the essence of the rule of law.</p>
<h2>Myth busting</h2>
<p>This case exposes many of the errors opponents of ISDS proceedings make. Claims that such <a href="https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/press.html">proceedings are secret</a> are simply untrue. Large swathes of this dispute are available online, just as court proceedings in Australia would be. The equivalent ISDS clause contained in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement <a href="https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Investment.pdf">goes further</a>. It has very far-reaching and specific provisions requiring disputes to be resolved transparently.</p>
<p>Equally, we can now demonstrate that these cases proceed according to fairly standard legal processes. Claims that such tribunals are not bound by precedent, and therefore <a href="https://theconversation.com/investor-rights-to-sue-governments-pose-real-dangers-40004">not bound to follow the ordinary legal process</a> are incorrect. That claim discloses a misunderstanding of the nature of precedent. </p>
<p>Many other jurisdictions do not share Australia’s technical rules of precedent - the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent"><em>stare decisis</em></a>” rule. Yet they still make predictable decisions. Civil law countries apply “<em>jurisprudence constante</em>”. This rule strikes a balance between the need for predictable decisions and the civil law insistence that only the legislature may make law. International law must accommodate a plurality of legal systems. Australia’s approach to legal reasoning is not the last word in justice. Predictable, coherent legal decisions are possible even without strict application of <em>stare decisis</em>.</p>
<p>I have previously called for a sober analysis of the costs and benefits of ISDS clauses. Australia’s victory over Philip Morris should take much heat out of this debate.</p>
<p>The bogeyman has been slain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52541/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tomas Fitzgerald has received funding from the WA Bar Association. He is a member of WA Labor and the NTEU. </span></em></p>Australia’s plain packaging win over Philip Morris will kill the ISDS bogeyman.Tomas Fitzgerald, Senior Lecturer, Law, University of Notre Dame AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/517272015-12-03T00:36:33Z2015-12-03T00:36:33ZThe slow-burn, devastating impact of tobacco plain packs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104167/original/image-20151202-22464-1wg8uu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anti-smoking momentum among young people is starving the tobacco industry of new smokers,</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-296715101/stock-photo-smoking-kill.html?src=p0cZAblRFRgcGltbGQXgQw-1-0">Donnakarn Pongmanutsakorn/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is three years since Australia fully implemented its historic tobacco <a href="http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/12257/7/9781743324295_Chapman_RemovingtheEmperorsClothes_FT.pdf">plain packaging law</a>. From December 1, 2012, all tobacco products have been required to be sold in the mandated standardised packs, which, with their large disturbing graphic health warnings, are anything but “plain”.</p>
<p>Ever since, there have been frenzied efforts by the tobacco industry and its ideological baggage carriers to discredit the policy as a failure. </p>
<p>The obvious subtext of this effort has been to megaphone a message to other governments that they should not contemplate introducing plain packaging because it has “failed”: smoking, it is claimed, has not fallen any faster in Australia after plain packaging that it was already falling before. All that has occurred, they argue, is that illicit trade has increased.</p>
<p>The supreme irony here is of course that if such criticism was correct, then to paraphrase Hamlet’s mother Gertrude, “The tobacco industry doth protest too much, methinks.” Why would the industry and its astro-turfed bloggers waste so much money and effort denigrating a policy which was having little or no impact? </p>
<p>Why take the Australian government to the High Court (and fail six to one) to try and block the law? Why invest in supporting minnow tobacco-growing states such as the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Cuba in their efforts to have the World Trade Organization rule against plain packaging? </p>
<p>Why not just ignore an ineffective policy instead of making it only too obvious to all by such actions that it is in fact a grave threat to your industry?</p>
<p>Two key assumptions have underscored efforts to discredit the impact of plain packaging. First, critics assume the impacts of the law should have been evident immediately as it was implemented: as one colleague put it recently “within ten seconds of the law passing”. </p>
<p>Second, they assume (but never actually state) that the impact of plain packaging on smoking by children (the principal target) and adults was supposedly going to be greater than anything we have previously observed in the entire history of tobacco control.</p>
<p>In 1999, the late Tony McMichael, professor of epidemiology at the Australian National University, published a classic paper called <a href="http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/149/10/887.full.pdf">Prisoners of the Proximate</a> where he wrote about the need to understand the determinants of population health in terms that extend beyond proximate single risk factors and influences. </p>
<p>In tobacco control, both proximal (discrete, recent and quick-acting) and distal (on-going, slow-burn) effects of policies and campaigns can occur.
Price rises (and falls through discounting) can have both immediate and lasting effects, jolting smokers into sometimes unplanned quitting and also slowly percolating an unease about the costs of smoking that translate into quitting down the track.</p>
<p>Tobacco advertising bans are a good example of a policy that has such slow-burn effects across many years. Few if any quit smoking in direct response to tobacco advertising bans. They work instead by causing the next generations of kids to grow up in an environment devoid of massive promotional campaigns depicting smoking in positive ways.</p>
<p>I have often heard smokers say “plain packaging won’t make me quit smoking”. This is akin to the myopic self-awareness of those who swear “advertising (for any product) never influences me” while noting that it only influences the more impressionable.</p>
<p>Plain packs were unlikely to act suddenly in the way tax rises do, although the unavoidably huge graphic health warnings may well have acted like straws that broke the Camel’s back of worry about smoking. Their impact was far more likely to be of the slow-burn sort, where the constant reminder that tobacco, unique among all products, is the only consumer good treated this way by the law. It is exceptionally dangerous, with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/smoking-new-australian-data-to-die-or-live-for-37962">recent estimate</a> that two in every three long-term smokers will die from tobacco use.</p>
<p>In 1994 I wrote a now highly cited <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1678429/pdf/bmj00034-0039.pdf">paper</a> in the British Medical Journal which talked about the impossibility of “unravelling gossamer with boxing gloves” when it came to being certain about precisely why smokers quit. I took a day in the life of a smoker who quit, and pointed to the myriad of influences both distal and proximal that coalesce to finally stimulate a smoker to quit. </p>
<p>While a smoker might nominate a particular policy, conversation with a doctor or anti-smoking campaign as being “the reason” they quit, much of what went on before provides the broad shoulders of concern that carry the final attribution. There are synergies between all these factors and the demand to separate them all is like the demand to unscramble an omelette.</p>
<p>So what has happened to smoking in Australia since plain packs? </p>
<p>Data released this month from a national schools <a href="http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/Publishing.nsf/content/BCBF6B2C638E1202CA257ACD0020E35C/$File/Tobacco%20Report%202014.PDF">survey</a> involving more than 23,000 high school children found smoking rates were the lowest ever recorded since the studies first commenced in 1984 (see graph). This momentum is starving the tobacco industry of new smokers, which is one important reason why all tobacco companies are now busily acquiring e-cigarette brands.</p>
<p><strong>Proportion of 12- to 15-year-olds who smoke, 1984 to 2014</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104171/original/image-20151203-22439-ofg596.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104171/original/image-20151203-22439-ofg596.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104171/original/image-20151203-22439-ofg596.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104171/original/image-20151203-22439-ofg596.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104171/original/image-20151203-22439-ofg596.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104171/original/image-20151203-22439-ofg596.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104171/original/image-20151203-22439-ofg596.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104171/original/image-20151203-22439-ofg596.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trends in proportion of current (smoked in past seven days) and committed smokers (smoked on three or more of the past seven days) among 12 to 15-year old students, Australia, 1984-2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Drug Strategy report 2014.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With adults, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Sep%202015?OpenDocument">National Accounts data</a> just released show that for the 11 quarter-year periods since March 2013, consumption of tobacco products in aggregate fell an unprecedented 20.8%, while the previous 11 quarters it fell 15.7% and in the 11 before that, only 2.2%.</p>
<p>The latest available data on adult smoking prevalence we have is from 2013 and show just 12.8% of Australians over 14 smoked on a daily basis. This is the lowest on record and again, the biggest percentage falls experienced since the surveys commenced (see graph).</p>
<p><strong>Reductions in daily smoking among Australians aged over 14, 1991 to 2013</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104172/original/image-20151203-22464-14pf1dl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104172/original/image-20151203-22464-14pf1dl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104172/original/image-20151203-22464-14pf1dl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104172/original/image-20151203-22464-14pf1dl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104172/original/image-20151203-22464-14pf1dl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104172/original/image-20151203-22464-14pf1dl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104172/original/image-20151203-22464-14pf1dl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">AIHW National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2013: preliminary findings. 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author-sourced.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Meanwhile, the tobacco industry plods along funding <a href="http://www.tobaccopreventioncessation.com/pdf-60650-3665?filename=Refuting%20tobacco-industry.pdf">heavily lambasted</a> studies which purport to show none of this is happening.</p>
<p>The argument that plain packaging would cause illicit trade to boom was made with monotonous regularity by Big Tobacco between April 2010 when plain packaging was announced and its December 2012 implementation. When the industry lost its case in the High Court, the argument was quietly dropped. </p>
<p>Today, the industry explains illicit trade entirely by the heinous government tobacco tax rises cloaked in a sanctimonious rhetoric of speaking up for poor smokers and corporate citizen concern about tax avoidance bleeding Treasury. In all this it fails to mention that it has long used tax rises as air cover to quietly raise its own profit margins.</p>
<p>As I wrote recently in <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-of-all-the-concerns-there-is-one-taxation-which-alarms-us-the-most-50580">The Conversation</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>From August 2011 to February 2013, while excise duty rose 24¢ for a pack of 25, the tobacco companies’ portion of the cigarette price (which excludes excise and GST), jumped A$1.75 to A$7.10. While excise had risen 2.8% over the period, the average net price had risen 27%. Philip Morris’ budget brand Choice 25s rose A$1.80 in this period, with only 41¢ of this being from excise and GST.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ireland, the United Kingdom and France have already passed laws to introduce plain packs. Norway and Canada will soon, and New Zealand, Chile, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil have also made high-level noises about joining in too. The world has a lot to thank Rudd and Gillard governments (and particularly Health Minister Nicola Roxon) for taking this initiative, and the subsequent Coalition government for continuing to support it strongly as it continues to come under attack from those it has and will continue to hurt.</p>
<p>Update: Dec 5: There are now 25 nations which have either passed plain packaging legislation, have it in train, or are planning to introduce it. See https://twitter.com/SimonChapman6/status/672888858871095296</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
It is three years since Australia fully implemented its historic tobacco plain packaging law. From December 1, 2012, all tobacco products have been required to be sold in the mandated standardised packs…Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/487572015-10-08T19:23:39Z2015-10-08T19:23:39ZCanada has an ISDS clause with the US. It has faced 35 challenges. Is this Australia’s future?<p>Australia and Canada have a great deal in common - a British colonial past; large and sparsely populated territories; and resource-intensive economies.</p>
<p>Two other similarities also bear mentioning: the economies of both countries are dominated by US investors (<a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5352.0">27% of foreign investment in Australia</a> and <a href="http://www.international.gc.ca/economist-economiste/assets/pdfs/Data/investments-investissements/FDI_by_Country/FDIC_stocks_by_Country-ENG.pdf">nearly half in Canada</a>); and both countries were involved in the negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) finalised on Monday.</p>
<p>But there is a one major difference: up until now, <a href="http://www.iisd.org/itn/2011/07/12/australias-rejection-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement-four-potential-contributing-factors/">Australia has never agreed to provide American investors with access to Investor-State Dispute Settlement</a> (ISDS), whereas Canada has. Why is this significant? Trade minister Andrew Robb likes to point out that Australia already has ISDS in 29 existing treaties and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-faces-50m-legal-bill-in-cigarette-plain-packaging-fight-with-philip-morris-20150728-gim4xo.html">“the sun has still come up”</a>. </p>
<p>But comparing investment treaties with countries like Papua New Guinea (PNG) and one with the US is comparing apples and oranges. Aside from the obvious differences in levels of investment (PNG investors that don’t exist can’t sue the government), there is the fact that American corporations are <a href="http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf">more litigious than investors from any other country</a>.</p>
<p>It is true that creative lawyers <a href="http://toddntucker.com/2015/08/07/integrate-u/">can already find ways</a> to bring suits against Australia on behalf of their American clients (such as tobacco giant, <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging">Philip Morris</a>). But in providing direct access to ISDS the TPP will make it much easier for American investors to launch cases and possibly also to win them. For example, Philip Morris might very well lose its ISDS case in the jurisdictional stage for <a href="http://www.mccabecentre.org/focus-areas/tobacco/philip-morris-asia-challenge">technical reasons</a> related to the timing of its investment restructuring (which was done to access an Australia-Hong Kong investment treaty). </p>
<p>So how has this difference between Australia and Canada played out? In In total Canada has faced 35 challenges, 23 of these in the last ten years. Australia has been subjected to only one ISDS case.</p>
<p>Canada has been sued more times than Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and at a global level it has been involved in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html">more ISDS cases than any other developed country</a>. Canada has already lost or settled seven claims, paid out damages <a href="https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/nafta-chapter-11-investor-state-disputes-january-1-2015">totalling over CA$170 million</a> and incurred untold millions more in legal costs.</p>
<p>At the same time, Canadian companies have been <a href="https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2015/08/Losing_Proposition.pdf">rather unsuccessful in ISDS</a>. In general, the claim that ISDS will primarily benefit the “little guy” isn’t borne out by the statistics. According to an extensive (as yet unpublished) study by <a href="https://gusvanharten.wordpress.com/?s=van+ha">Gus Van Harten</a>, the largest multinationals (those with over US$10 billion in annual revenue) have the highest level of success in ISDS (89% at the jurisdictional stage, 83% on the merits, and 71% overall). <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/234775950/position-paper-of-German-small-and-medium-sized-Businesses-on-on-ISDS-in-TTIP#scribd">Small and medium-sized enterprises</a>, on the other hand, don’t fare as well. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, Van Harten’s data indicates that investors on the whole have a high degree of success with the system (80% on jurisdiction, 64% on the merits and 49% overall). Others have come to <a href="http://www.iisd.org/itn/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/itn-breaking-news-june-2015-isds-who-wins-more-investors-or-state.pdf?utm_source=lists.iisd.ca&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ITN+Breaking+News+Analysis+-+ISDS:+Who+Wins+More,+Investors+or+States?">similar conclusions</a>. When <a href="https://theconversation.com/ratifying-the-tpp-may-be-tough-but-australia-needs-it-48663">lower success rates are reported</a> there is often a clear methodological error (for example, erroneously counting pending cases as “losses” for investors).</p>
<p>What kinds of policies are being challenged in ISDS? While much attention in Australia has rightly been given to Philip Morris’ challenge of the plain packaging legislation, many cases around the world actually focus on environmental protection and resource management. </p>
<p>Such cases account for <a href="https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study">63% of disputes involving Canada</a>. So <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tobacco-carveout-highlights-risks-of-tpp-20151007-gk38os.html">carving out tobacco from ISDS</a>, as has reportedly been done in the TPP, is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. If anything, it signals that the “<a href="http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/tpp/outcomes-documents/Pages/outcomes-investment.aspx">safeguards</a>” in place in the agreement are, on their own, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-corporate-friendly-world-of-the-t-p-p?mbid=social_twitter">insufficient to protect public policy</a>.</p>
<p>Australia is opening a can of (<a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/07/28/abbotts-new-treaty-a-win-for-lawyers-corporations-but-a-loss-for-australia/?wpmp_switcher=mobile">really expensive</a>) worms with the TPP. And significantly, it isn’t a can that can easily be closed again. Agreeing to the TPP means locking Australia into the current flawed system of ISDS long into the future, at the very time when countries (including <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/france-and-germany-form-united-front-against-isds-311267">France, Germany</a>, <a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/joseph-e--stiglitz-on-the-dangers-of-bilateral-investment-agreements">South Africa</a> and <a href="http://hsfnotes.com/publicinternationallaw/2015/04/02/indian-government-seeks-comments-on-a-proposed-draft-model-text-for-the-indian-bilateral-investment-treaty/">India</a>) are considering abandoning it or at least introducing <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c1f2c4b2-f34a-11e4-8141-00144feab7de.html#axzz3nsTyrRsP">more significant reforms</a> than those expected to be found in the TPP. </p>
<p>The bilateral investment treaties that Australia is already party to are relatively easy to get rid of – most have provisions allowing for unilateral termination after an initial period of around ten years. Its bilateral trade deals (like the recent ones signed with Korea and China) are a lot more difficult to amend because there are other issues covered that Australia might not want to open up for renegotiation. Pluri-lateral trade deals like the TPP are all the more complex and nearly impossible to change once ratified. </p>
<p>Despite huge problems with NAFTA, and a great deal of rhetoric from US president <a href="https://www.citizen.org/documents/ObamaTradeCampaignStatementsFINAL.pdf">Barack Obama</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008#NAFTA_position">Hillary Clinton</a> (who has, incidentally, just <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/07/hillary-clinton-opposes-obamas-trans-pacific-trade-deal/?emc=edit_tnt_20151007&nlid=46745373&tntemail0=y&_r=1">come out against the TPP</a>) about amending it on the campaign trail in 2008, the treaty has not been touched in over 20 years. We should expect that the same will be true for the <a href="http://business-humanrights.org/en/robert-reich-on-trans-pacific-partnership-as-nafta-on-steroids">“NAFTA on steroids”</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48757/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kyla Tienhaara receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The experience of Canada, which agreed to an ISDS clause in its North American Free Trade agreement, should give pause to Australia.Kyla Tienhaara, Research Fellow Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/464572015-08-30T20:08:29Z2015-08-30T20:08:29ZWe got an FOI request from Big Tobacco – here’s how it went<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93127/original/image-20150827-358-1t141e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'The people of the United Kingdom' felt the tobacco industry’s record of addicting children and then killing one in two of those who don’t escape their clutches did matter. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/smaedli/3623298638/in/photolist-6wbmsb-5Cm4Sd-9ndKXH-e3KPRT-wKpbk8-hruT-95q1qF-4XfFZ5-8xVxdm-4VVshc-9hAfBQ-d43btd-78cThX-qXsuCx-9FBRzD-gwH5Xi-gHfZPD-mVZT68-5ZZ1Zf-kTfrB-kfJu4k-jm8eDF-8rskxA-9ngNGW-8bkE7G-cbHgAh-cZ1PGW-5n7xDE-kevQrA-w7wt8u-3dwD4u-5KkZvc-divYY7-ebpqir-mSBuUr-dcnmVu-n2qtSX-ccWCmQ-agEbFE-bjFevt-n2xyog-oXcHuE-9KJcFs-8PVT1u-gwGdQo-bUm44r-oMB85B-5S1Uun-6xLegp-4guryr">Chad Kainz/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a world where knowledge is power, information is the antidote to oppression. We citizens must know what those at the top are doing if we’re going to hold them to account. That’s why freedom of information (FOI) legislation is a vital element of any functioning democracy; it helps rebalance power. </p>
<p>As the preamble to the <a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/what-is-the-foi-act/">UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000</a> enthuses:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>this White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the government and people of the United Kingdom. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But voters are not the only ones making use of FOI; big business has also spotted an opportunity. The latest examples come from tobacco multinational <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/tobacco-company-wants-schools-survey-for-insights-into-children-and-teens-20150819-gj2vto.html">British American Tobacco making FOI requests in Australia</a> for data from surveys about plain packaging for tobacco products.</p>
<p>This is perverse given corporations are among the most powerful entities on earth – far bigger than many countries. World Bank data shows that, in 2011, <a href="http://www.dawnnet.org/feminist-resources/sites/default/files/articles/corporate_influence_in_the_post-2015_process_web.pdf">over 60% of the 175 largest global economic entities</a> were companies not countries, and that this concentration of power is growing rapidly.</p>
<p>Sadly, it seems, whatever the noble intentions of FOI, those with power want to hang on to it. </p>
<h2>In Big Tobacco’s crosshairs</h2>
<p>“Making an FOI request” sounds benign enough, but its effects on individual recipients can be traumatic. Six years ago, my colleagues and I <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/exclusive-smoked-out-tobacco-giants-war-on-science-2347254.html">had our own experience</a> of this very unwelcome sort of attention, when another tobacco multinational, Philip Morris, decided it wanted access to <a href="http://www.stir.ac.uk/health-sciences/research/groups/ctcr/">our research unit’s teen smoking study</a>.</p>
<p>The first we knew of what was to befall us was a peremptory letter from the global law firm Clifford Chance. It demanded a vast array of information, including “all primary data”; “all questionnaires”; “all interviewers’ handbooks and/or instructions”; “all data files”; “all record descriptions” and “all information relating to sampling, data collection, handling of non-response and post-stratification weighting and analysis”. </p>
<p>The letter was framed as a request, but warned us that “under the Act” we were “obliged to respond within 20 working days”. The “or else” was left to our imagination.</p>
<p>At an anxious meeting with the university lawyers, we were advised that we had either to provide the information or, relying solely on the terms of the Act, explain why we would not. And that the repercussions for not doing so were just as serious as the letter implied. </p>
<p>This meant a massive amount of work auditing hundreds of files on what was already a decade-long study. Our response, arguing the material was confidential because we had promised the young people we surveyed that it would only be used by bona fide academic researchers, ran to 60 pages. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93128/original/image-20150827-340-1ptv9nd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93128/original/image-20150827-340-1ptv9nd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93128/original/image-20150827-340-1ptv9nd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93128/original/image-20150827-340-1ptv9nd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93128/original/image-20150827-340-1ptv9nd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93128/original/image-20150827-340-1ptv9nd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93128/original/image-20150827-340-1ptv9nd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tobacco companies have requested survey data on young people’s smoking habits in the UK and in Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/78428166@N00/7531774196/in/photolist-ctyj4N-eWtXhW-48PVQe-5uXb2P-bVxYaR-5WXteR-eWhwCR-eWtXid-4VekxF-vshuLu-4CF5Rm-8zSd5A-vqm2ym-woaArz-pRAZ9V-4FNpUq-dwrdvR-7rrhKX-7rrhQZ-p9hexj-r4utey-6ri46V-5L3M2k-5Dw4kN-cntvR-gJVVbN-4h3SuU-7xQg5T-6dfQ7g-us8VsB-4hnRdf-atmVEL-7n5PJ8-aRMVE8-ekwhB6-7ykPub-oQ3zL-4Yrt6e-vy4J7E-BNVe7-7ME7ub-o3oYex-kd7UdL-7rrhNi-7G4E9-4HYDAw-czQgJh-5b2vip-ET3mG-jASFX">Tony Alter/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>If at first you fail…</h2>
<p>Clifford Chance immediately challenged it and the matter went to the Scottish Information Commissioner for adjudication. The commissioner ruled the initial request illegitimate because the name of the client had not been disclosed. </p>
<p>So, we needn’t have bothered. </p>
<p>Completely unabashed, Philip Morris declared itself, then made a new FOI demand and the whole stressful process began again. So it went on, for two very long years. </p>
<p>We are a university research unit of a dozen people and our funding comes from charitable and public sources. We have no spare capacity. This work had to be done in the evening and at weekends; the worrying was done in the wee small hours. </p>
<p>It stretched us almost to breaking point, and we were left thinking that this was precisely the intention. Our research is a nuisance to tobacco companies. It has shown that advertising does pull children into smoking, that plain packaging discourages uptake, and that in-shop displays are enticing. </p>
<p>It has helped the Scottish and UK governments devise protective legislation, such as the ban on tobacco advertising.</p>
<h2>The people prevail</h2>
<p>But our attempts to use our suspicions about Philip Morris’ nefarious intentions as a reason for refusing the request got nowhere. </p>
<p>The identity of the applicant is irrelevant in FOI. The fact that this was not a request from “the people of the United Kingdom” but a powerful multinational producing an addictive and lethal carcinogen, mattered not a whit.</p>
<p>Fortunately, “the people of the United Kingdom” are more discerning than Westminster policymakers. They felt the tobacco industry’s record of addicting children and then killing one in two of those who don’t escape their clutches <em>did</em> matter. And that its right to information therefore comes way behind the child’s right to privacy and good health. </p>
<p>When the press publicised the story of the FOI request, the outcry was immediate and cacophonous. <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/unscrupulous-and-deadly-1080775">An editorial in the Daily Record</a> captured the mood as only a tabloid can: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hell should freeze over before a cigarette company is given help to kill more of our fellow Scots.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We have heard no more from Philip Morris. </p>
<p>It seems FOI does indeed give power to the people, but not quite in the way policymakers intended. And that if power is to be redistributed, it has to be taken away from those at the top as well as given to those at the bottom.</p>
<p><em>Acknowledgement: I’d like to thank my colleagues Anne Marie Mackintosh and Linda Bauld who were also at the centre of this firestorm. Without their support things would have been much more difficult.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46457/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerard Hastings receives funding from public and charitable research funding agencies including the World Health Organisation and Cancer Research UK. He is affiliated with Amnesty International.</span></em></p>Cancer Council Victoria is contesting British American Tobacco’s request for survey data about teenagers’ smoking habits. Here’s the story of a UK research group who faced a similar request.Gerard Hastings, Professor at the Institute for Social Marketing , University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/454272015-07-30T03:04:54Z2015-07-30T03:04:54ZAustralian government’s $50m investment in defending against Big Tobacco legal thuggery<p>Imagine you were about to buy a property and were advised that in two years time, a major freeway would be built two hundred metres away, greatly diminishing the value of your purchase. Then imagine you went ahead anyway, the freeway was built, and your property value went down as expected. You took the person who sold you the property and the government who built the freeway to court, seeking compensation.</p>
<p>Fools and their money are easily parted.</p>
<p>This is, in effect, what the tobacco transnational Philip Morris has done with Australia’s plain tobacco packaging laws, fully implemented in December 2012, when it started legal proceedings against the Australian government under a bilateral trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia signed in 1993. The arrogant claim being made is that our plain packaging law breaches the agreement between the government of Hong Kong and the government of Australia for the promotion and protection of investments.</p>
<p>The Rudd government announced plain packaging on April 29, 2010. At that time, Philip Morris tobacco products in Australia were manufactured by Philip Morris Australia. On February 23, 2011, Philip Morris Asia purchased Philip Morris Australia and on June 27, 2011 – a full 14 months after knowing the government intended to introduce plain packs – Philip Morris Asia served its notice of claim to the Australian government.</p>
<p>So after 14 months of full knowledge that Australia was going to legislate for plain packs, Philip Morris Asia (PMA) knowingly “purchased” Philip Morris Australia. The case has so far run up <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-faces-50m-legal-bill-in-cigarette-plain-packaging-fight-with-philip-morris-20150728-gim4xo.html">A$50m</a> in legal bills for the Australian government.</p>
<p>The proceedings in what is known as the BIT (bilateral trade) case are governed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules of Arbitration 2010 (UNCITRAL Rules), and are being overseen by a three-member arbitral tribunal. Philip Morris Asia has requested that the case be heard in secret and only limited documents published (with redactions), as it is entitled to do under the UNCITRAL rules.</p>
<p>Monash University legal expert <a href="http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-morris-scores-an-own-goal-4967">Mark Davison</a> is convinced that its case for compensation is worthless.</p>
<p>Article 6 of the BIT specifically refers to how compensation should be calculated. It states that the compensation shall amount to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the real value of the investment immediately before the deprivation or before the impending deprivation became public knowledge whichever is the earlier.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The investment is defined in Article 1 of the BIT as the investment of the Hong Kong investors, that is, PMA. So what was the value of the “investment” that PMA had before the impending “deprivation” became public knowledge? It seems that it did not have any investment at all at the time that the impending “deprivation” became public knowledge.</p>
<p>No doubt PMA will have some argument on the point but, as a general rule, the value of nothing is nothing.</p>
<p>So why has it embarked on this fool’s errand? A large part of Philip Morris’ motivation is undoubtedly to frighten other nations into shelving plans for plain packaging. Twelve nations have already either introduced plain packaging legislation or are preparing to do so. Poorer countries might well be financially bullied into not proceeding by the prospect of the legal costs.</p>
<p>Both the current Coalition and previous Labor government’s continuing support for the international legal attacks are truly magnificent contributions to fighting off this corporate thuggery and setting precedents for the world’s poorer nations which would be loathe to be in the front line of legal defence against Big Tobacco. </p>
<p>With tobacco causing 5.4 million deaths a year, with one billion forecast this century, our government’s investment to fend off Big Tobacco’s global ambitions to wreck effective tobacco control is of enormous importance in the history of controlling the epidemics of preventable non-communicable diseases such as lung cancer, respiratory and heart disease.</p>
<p>Since plain packaging was introduced, smoking prevalence has continued to fall in Australia. The 2013 triennial national survey shows just 12.8% of Australians aged 14 and up smoke daily. This is the lowest in the world. <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/5206.0Main%20Features3Mar%202015?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=5206.0&issue=Mar%202015&num=&view=">National accounts data</a> for the March 2015 quarter show tobacco consumption has fallen a staggering <a href="http://thekouk.com/blog/tobacco-consumption-down-17-5-since-plain-packaging-laws-too-effect.html">17.5%</a> since the September 2012 quarter, just before plain packs were introduced.</p>
<p>Big Tobacco’s cracked record response to this is to repeatedly claim that one in seven cigarettes now smoked in Australia is illegally sourced. Here, we are supposed to believe that legions of Australia’s smokers all know how to source smuggled illicit tobacco every day, but the hapless federal police haven’t got a clue where they can investigate the alleged ubiquitous supply chains. </p>
<p>Big Tobacco’s unctuous hypocrisy about the source of large amounts of illict traded tobacco is seldom mentioned in all this. Long known to be involved in supplying tobacco to nations through which large scale international smuggling is organised, British Revenue and Customs’ <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/16/bat-fined-for-oversupplying-tobacco-in-low-tax-european-jurisdictions">recent estimate</a>, for 2011, is that “the aggregate actual supply of some brands of hand-rolling tobacco to some countries exceeded legitimate demand by 240%”.</p>
<p><em>Simon Chapman & Becky Freeman’s recent book on Australia’s plain packaging strategy is <a href="http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/12257/7/9781743324295_Chapman_RemovingtheEmperorsClothes_FT.pdf">available here for free</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45427/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Imagine you were about to buy a property and were advised that in two years time, a major freeway would be built two hundred metres away, greatly diminishing the value of your purchase. Then imagine you…Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/397992015-04-09T20:40:50Z2015-04-09T20:40:50ZLeaked TPP investment chapter shows risks to Australia’s health<p>Amid ongoing speculation about the prospects for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), Wikileaks published another confidential chapter last week, this time on investment. And like almost everything we know about the secretive negotiations for the agreement, the leaked chapter provides plenty of cause for concern.</p>
<p>The leaked <a href="https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/">late-stage draft of the investment chapter</a> contains information about the agreement’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause. Clauses like this give investors direct access to international arbitration, where they can bring claims against a government over regulatory measures they think may damage their bottom line. </p>
<p>The chapter has a footnote saying Australia is exempt from ISDS, but that may change “subject to certain conditions”. The leaked draft doesn’t indicate the exact nature of these conditions, and the footnote remains in brackets, indicating the issue has not yet been settled.</p>
<p>The Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb, has repeatedly said the TPP will not adversely affect health policy. In a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-17/trans-pacific-partnership-details-will-be/6327068">recent interview</a> with ABC TV, he said the government had insisted on carveouts for health and environmental public policy decisions from investor-state dispute settlement clauses. </p>
<p>But the leaked draft shows these carveouts (which are still under negotiation) are limited to specific areas such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare Benefits Scheme, Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. </p>
<h2>ISDS health concerns</h2>
<p>An independent <a href="http://hiaconnect.edu.au/research-and-publications/tpp_hia/">health impact assessment</a> of the TPP negotiations conducted by Australian academics and non-government organisations published in February 2015 found the ISDS clause presents a significant threat to health policy. </p>
<p>Part of the problem is that the TPP defines investments very broadly to include intangible assets and intellectual property, such as trademarks and patents. These kinds of assets are at the heart of current ISDS cases contesting <a href="http://www.italaw.com/cases/851">Australia’s plain packaging laws</a> and <a href="http://www.italaw.com/cases/1625">Canada’s decisions about what medicines can be patented</a>.</p>
<p>Such claims can result in large-scale costs for taxpayers. Not only do the awards for investor-state cases often amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, <a href="http://www.italaw.com/cases/1625">according to the OECD</a> the average cost of fighting a claim is US$8 million. </p>
<p>Another issue that has health advocates worried is the potential “chilling effect” of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms; the prospect that governments may be deterred from implementing innovative health policies and laws that may be contested by corporations using ISDS clauses. </p>
<p>Director-General of the World Health Organization, Margaret Chan <a href="http://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2012/tobacco_20120320/en/">noted in 2012</a> that legal actions against Uruguay, Norway and Australia were “deliberately designed to instill fear” in countries trying to reduce smoking. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/health/tobacco-industry-tactics-limit-poorer-nations-smoking-laws.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&">Uruguay has publicly acknowledged</a> that it would have had to drop its tobacco control law and settle with Philip Morris if it didn’t have financial support from a foundation set up by Michael Bloomberg.</p>
<h2>Protecting health?</h2>
<p>In addition to the carveouts for specific health programs, the TPP contains purported “safeguards” to protect health and the environment. But these safeguards have also drawn strong criticism, in particular, from eight health and community organisations who wrote to the trade minister last week to <a href="http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/150401%20Letter%20to%20Minister%20Robb%20re%20proposed%20investment%20chapter%20of%20the%20TPP.pdf">outline their concerns</a>.</p>
<p>One of the main concerns centres on the safeguard related to “indirect expropriation”. While Australian law protects against direct expropriation – the seizure of assets by government – the TPP goes further to include instances where a government’s actions have a negative impact on an investment, but do not result in a transfer of property to the state. </p>
<p>The broader scope of expropriation under ISDS in the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.hk/IPPAAustraliae.PDF">Hong Kong - Australia bilateral investment treaty</a>, for instance, has enabled Philip Morris to contest Australia’s tobacco plain packaging through international arbitration even though <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hca43-2012-10-05.pdf">the High Court determined</a> that there had been no acquisition of property by the state under Australian law.</p>
<p>To safeguard against abuse of this provision, the TPP includes an annex that appears to exempt “non-discriminatory regulatory actions by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety and the environment…”. But any protective effect intended by this clause may be undermined by the added phrase “…except in rare circumstances.”</p>
<p>This loophole, which invites corporations to argue that their circumstances are rare, is being used in a <a href="http://www.italaw.com/cases/2110">case against Costa Rica</a> over a national park established to protect the nesting grounds of the endangered giant leatherback sea turtle. Nine US investors lodged a dispute, seeking over US$36.5 million in compensation, when Costa Rica suspended development permits for beachfront land within the national park boundaries. The case has yet to be decided.</p>
<p>Another proposed exemption – this time for compulsory licenses – is also <a href="https://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-chapter-and-access-to-medicines.pdf">highly problematic</a>. Compulsory licences are important mechanisms for ensuring access to medicines, as they allow patents to be bypassed in circumstances such as public health emergencies. But the wording of the exemption in the TPP would allow corporations to argue a compulsory license is not compliant with World Trade Organization rules. Or with the intellectual property chapter of the TPP, which actually provides more expansive rights for corporations. This could create a situation where WTO rules could be interpreted and enforced outside the more flexible and accountable state-state dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO itself.</p>
<p>Other safeguards, such as the explicit link drawn between a clause promising investors “fair and equitable treatment” and customary international law (international obligations that arise from established state practice), <a href="https://www.iisd.org/itn/2013/03/22/a-distinction-without-a-difference-the-interpretation-of-fair-and-equitable-treatment-under-customary-international-law-by-investment-tribunals/">may also prove insufficient</a>. Such a safeguard was <a href="http://www.sice.oas.org/tpd/nafta/Commission/CH11understanding_e.asp">introduced by the parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2001</a> but this did not prevent the tribunal in the recent <a href="http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/disp-diff/clayton-12.pdf">Clayton/Bilcon case</a> from finding that customary international law in this area has evolved over time in a manner that is more in line with the investor’s interpretation, than with that of Canada’s government. The tribunal has yet to make a decision on damages, but the company is seeking US$300 million. </p>
<p>The problems and loopholes characterising the latest leaked TPP draft throw doubt on the government’s claims that it’s taking the concerns of health stakeholders as seriously as the interests of big transnationals. And they highlight exactly why it’s vital for the draft text to be made public and subjected to independent scrutiny before it is signed. Indeed, it would be safer to exclude ISDS from the TPP altogether. </p>
<p>Minister Robb asks us to trust his assurances that Australian health policy will not be negatively affected by this trade agreement. But this latest leaked draft does little to inspire such trust.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39799/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Deborah Gleeson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She has received funding from various national and international non-government organisations to attend speaking engagements related to trade agreements and health, including the TPP. She has represented the Public Health Association of Australia on matters related to the TPP.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kyla Tienhaara receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sharon Friel receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.</span></em></p>The latest part of the TPP to be leaked is its investment chapter. And like almost everything we know about the secretive negotiations for the agreement, it provides plenty of cause for concern.Deborah Gleeson, Lecturer in Public Health, La Trobe UniversityKyla Tienhaara, Research Fellow Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), Australian National UniversitySharon Friel, Director and Professor of Health Equity, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/389782015-03-18T23:36:18Z2015-03-18T23:36:18ZCluster bomb of new research explodes tobacco industry lies about plain packs<p>There is near-universal agreement that Australia’s implementation of tobacco plain packaging in December 2012 has seen the most virulent opposition ever experienced from the global tobacco industry. </p>
<p>While the industry bravely insisted early in its campaigning that plain packs “would not work” their legal actions, campaign expenditure, lobbying and general apoplexy rather suggests they feared it would be a devastating policy, with long term global ramifications.</p>
<p>Indeed, eleven other nations (Ireland, England, New Zealand, France, Norway, Finland, Chile, Brazil, India, South Africa, Turkey) have either legislated plain packaging or are now warming up to do so.</p>
<p>University of Sydney researcher Becky Freeman and I catalogued the full range of industry lies in our recently released (free) book <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2123/12257">Removing the Emperor’s Clothes</a>. The Cancer Council Victoria has also published extremely <a href="https://www.cancervic.org.au/plainfacts/browse.asp?ContainerID=factsheets1">detailed rebuttals</a> to the major industry scuttlebutt.</p>
<p>Now today, the British Medical Journal’s specialist journal Tobacco Control has published a special collection of <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052285">new research</a> which puts further 10,000 watt arc lights on specious industry claims.</p>
<p>Key industry claims have included that plain packs would:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Drive prices down, as smokers turn away from buying expensive premium brands because they look exactly the same as cheap brands (other than brand names). More affordable cigarettes, they argued, would cause more smoking, including among children</p></li>
<li><p>Flood Australia with illegal tobacco</p></li>
<li><p>Cause smokers to stop buying cigarettes at small convenience stores</p></li>
<li><p>Prompt smokers to use special covers to conceal the large-scale graphic warnings on packs.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Price falls?</h2>
<p>One of the new Tobacco Control <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051948">papers</a> monitors changes in recommended retail prices RRPs from one year before plain packs were introduced until one year after. Prices were adjusted to 2013 prices, and for inflation and average cigarette price stick and grams of roll-your-own tobacco. </p>
<p>The RRPs of tobacco products were higher in real terms one year after the legislation was implemented. Importantly, these increases exceeded increases resulting from consumer price indexation of duty and occurred across all three major manufacturers for both factory made and roll-your-own brands, all three cigarette market segments and all major pack sizes. </p>
<p>Tobacco prices rose most for leading and premium brands 10.0% and 10.1%, respectively) and among packs of 30s (18.3%) and 50s (12.5%). So far from seeing cigarette prices fall across the board, the industry raised prices.</p>
<h2>Floods of illicit tobacco?</h2>
<p>The tobacco industry’s most common claim was that plain packs would see smokers turn away from buying the purposefully confronting and unattractive plain packs and seek out illegal products not in plain packs. </p>
<p>Tobacco spokespeople made the outrageous claim that about one in seven of all cigarettes being smoked were such illegally obtained cigarettes. Apparently, while ordinary smokers across the country knew where to buy these easily, the full might and resources of the Australian Federal Police could not work out where these were being sold.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75188/original/image-20150318-12118-wjjhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75188/original/image-20150318-12118-wjjhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75188/original/image-20150318-12118-wjjhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75188/original/image-20150318-12118-wjjhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75188/original/image-20150318-12118-wjjhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75188/original/image-20150318-12118-wjjhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75188/original/image-20150318-12118-wjjhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tobacco companies have been proven wrong.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/10604632@N02/1383481663/in/photolist-37fGU8-6JNJRk-9ykbtx-dSZYCR-iW7cEs-25kHDR-4um46A-k85XzF-9dmK6Z-iCwEqD-fmXy7c-oqjhrh-7VmH6t-jSEGW2-jV8CjR-dkA7nP-juZCap-5JGSWz-81JrQv-hmHACm-7JpWXX-gaBw9P-fXbpAS-kxg5ZB-9ZBkAf-9ykbXK-6FhjJd-LNsx9-9crNam-qoNUwZ-9nAKnm-8YTUHH-bn1Up8-9dpRqs-9XD2ko-67CdBq-cdDtuG-6wRTmH-7AJzm6-5woYn1-9ykakx-4xyMDn-4b1hQC-eXezT7-BQjiX-4xyMF6-dRUeCA-9yo9XG-hw6W3N-9yka4g">Curran Kelleher/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052072">study</a> in the collection questioned 8,679 smokers across the country in telephone surveys conducted continuously, from six months before plain packs until 15 months afterwards. </p>
<p>The study found no significant increases in reported purchasing of “cheap whites” (illegally imported Asian sourced brands), of international brands selling for 20% or more less than the normal retail price, or of unbranded loose tobacco (so-called “chop chop”). </p>
<p>Rates of purchase of cheap whites and heavily discounted products were at around half of one per cent of smokers, nothing remotely like one in seven.</p>
<h2>Small shops losing customers?</h2>
<p>One of the most bizarre claims the industry made was that plain packs would see smokers deserting corner stores for larger retail outlets like supermarkets. This was an appeal designed to tap into wider public sentiment about local corner store owners being crushed under the dead weight of government regulation. </p>
<p>Those making the claim never explained why smokers would abandon small retailers for large ones because of plain packs when the very same packs would be sold in both. Consumer preference for larger retailers is entirely driven by price discounting, something never mentioned in the industry propaganda.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052199">third paper</a> in the collection examined where smokers purchased their cigarettes. Unsurprisingly, it found no changes from prior to and after the introduction plain packs in where smokers bought their supplies.</p>
<h2>Covering up the packs?</h2>
<p>In the month that plain packs were introduced, a Queensland small businessman got his 15 minutes of fame from publicity about special pack covers that could block out the unforgettable graphic warnings. Like children covering their eyes from scary scenes in movies, the idea was that many smokers would rush to do the same, outsmarting the hapless bureaucrats who planned the legislation.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051826">fourth paper</a> which reports on unobtrusive observations of smokers handling their packs in outdoor cafés found that prior to plain packs, just 1.2% of outdoor café smokers used pack covers. This rose to 3.5% in the early months of plain packs and then fell back to 1.9% one year later. </p>
<p>In any event, <a href="http://www.itcproject.org/files/ITC_Tobacco_Labels_Bro_V3.pdf">evidence</a> shows that smokers who actively try to avoid exposure to pack warnings by covering them up, have higher subsequent rates of quit attempts than those who don’t.</p>
<p>Importantly too, these observations recorded that of all café outdoor patrons, one in 8.7 displayed a pack prior to the introduction of plain packs with this reducing to one in 10.3 afterwards. Such a fall is consistent with both a reduction in smoking prevalence and with growing self-consciousness among smokers about showing that they smoke in public.</p>
<h2>Impact on adolescents?</h2>
<p>There were several principal objectives of the plain packs legislation. But outstanding among these was the goal of making smoking less desirable among young people. This would continue the trend away from smoking, as each successive cohort of children chose not to take up the habit. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052084">fifth paper</a> used school-based surveys prior to and after plain packs to examine students’ ratings of the “character” of four popular cigarette brands, and variables including perceived harmfulness, look of pack and positive and negative perceptions of pack image. </p>
<p>Positive character ratings for each brand reduced significantly between 2011 and 2013. Significantly fewer students in 2013 than 2011 agreed that “some brands have better looking packs than others” and packs were rated more negatively, with positive ratings decreasing most in smokers.</p>
<p>The tobacco industry and its acolytes can be expected to try to torture these reports to spin yet more denials of the impact it fears will quickly inspire even more countries to follow Australia’s lead. </p>
<p>Australia is fortunate in having some of the very best researchers in the world whose work has contributed to the development of plain packs and now to the evaluation of its impact.</p>
<p><em><strong>Editor’s note: please ensure your comments are <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/community-standards">courteous and on-topic</a>.</strong></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38978/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
There is near-universal agreement that Australia’s implementation of tobacco plain packaging in December 2012 has seen the most virulent opposition ever experienced from the global tobacco industry.Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/387552015-03-16T06:23:09Z2015-03-16T06:23:09ZUnscrupulous methods used by tobacco industry revealed over illicit trade<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74828/original/image-20150313-7087-epkzrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ash</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/biwook/1411954352/in/photolist-39LCQy-9SnSgx-8mBgqd-emT2X-p3DC5Y-qpTPzU-6Q8bi8-65CMfS-cujWtu-6wfoH3-p1Btzb-5JZELF--jojJw5-5WEnoy-gAma3S-9rvDof-9Jw3X8-qMUZmD-76DRZn-83eNuC-nQMNQC-oLaAYg-83bEgB-fosLi8-KQXye-LGaFt-4z3CEG-foH1Mu-oLaa5H-pvLBKn-6Z1atT-pw2cRw-iiLJnT-83eMFA-jMQeUN-pu1L45-peyRGr-peyC9f-hKZ4GL-peyC4q-pu1LeA-peyBWb-fkJLUh-pBjxDB-pvLC2e-83ePrm-johDde-oWB9AK-pu1KXd">Ioan Sameli</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the run up to a parliamentary vote that saw <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2015-03-11&number=174&showall=yes#voters">overwhelming support</a> for introducing standardised (plain) packaging for cigarettes, tobacco companies and their supporters made frantic <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Plain_Packaging_in_the_UK:_Opposition_Following_January_2015_Announcement">attempts to influence public and political opinion</a> against the policy.</p>
<p>Since the very first calls for plain packaging, the tobacco industry has waged what is arguably its most virulent battle in recent years against the regulation of its business. It has employed a multi-faceted campaign to influence both public and political opinion, recognising that the former influences the latter.</p>
<h2>Exerting influence</h2>
<p>A key argument against is that plain packaging is a gift to counterfeiters and will lead to an exponential increase in illicit trade. Despite evidence of <a href="http://theconversation.com/tobacco-industry-rallies-against-illicit-trade-but-have-we-forgotten-its-complicity-38760">its endemic complicity</a> in this trade <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/31/kevinmaguire.duncancampbell">in the past</a>, as well as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30038328">a fine in 2014 for British American Tobacco</a> and <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2013-007681&language=EN">an investigation</a> of Japan Tobacco International that was still on-going in 2013, the industry has worked very hard to change the public perception of its role from perpetrator to victim and solution provider. It is using the latter in particular to get itself to policy making tables.</p>
<p>In the UK the industry has promoted two main messages: that the amount of cigarettes being smuggled is on the increase; and that plain packaging will make a deteriorating situation much worse, with added scaremongering about organised crime, local corner shop closures and “deadly” illicit tobacco. </p>
<p>In order to effectively promote these two main messages tobacco companies have relied on the classic public relations tactic – the third-party technique – using a seemingly independent messenger with a better reputation and greater credibility to convey arguments.</p>
<p>Since 2011, <a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tobaccotactics.org%2Findex.php%2FWill_O%25E2%2580%2599Reilly&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE71QEjR0WLOPR9k-AEx-urhPKKjw">Will O’Reilly</a>, a former detective chief inspector with the Metropolitan Police, has been paid by Philip Morris International to conduct research and act as an industry spokesman on the illicit tobacco trade. He has featured heavily <a href="http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11790631.print/">in regional press</a> across England stating that illicit tobacco trade is a big problem and will get much worse. O’Reilly has also lobbied on this issue in Scotland, Ireland ad New Zealand. </p>
<p>However, recent research by the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath has exposed how tobacco companies are exaggerating the extent of illicit tobacco in the UK by <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/e1/e51">commissioning surveys whose methodology and validity are unclear</a>, <a href="http://bit.ly/1GMe8DP">misquoting government data</a> and <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/10/tobaccocontrol-2013-051397.abstract">facilitating misleading media coverage</a>. </p>
<p>Despite the hype, in recent years <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps">official UK figures</a> suggest an overall decline in the illicit trade, or at worse a small increase.</p>
<p>One tobacco company spent £2m on advertising space in national broadsheets. In September/October 2012, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) published an advert in print and digital versions of the Financial Times, The Times, The Telegraph, the Guardian and the Evening Standard which portrayed illicit trade as a large and growing problem in the UK. </p>
<p>Following complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency <a href="http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2013-04-17-further-adverts-from-japan-tobacco-international-ruled-misleading?ssSourceSiteId=funding">the agency ruled</a> that JTI could not claim that “the black market in tobacco is booming”, nor that the UK suffered “£3 billion in unpaid duty last year” as this figure was the very top limit of an estimate of revenue loss by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The true figure is likely to be much lower.</p>
<h2>Misrepresenting Australia</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/despite-evidence-from-tobacco-companies-review-pushes-towards-plain-packs-24298">promotion of industry-funded research</a> is part of their campaign to claim that illicit trade has risen in Australia since plain packaging was introduced there in December 2012. But this research has been dismissed as flawed by both <a href="https://www.cancervic.org.au/downloads/plainfacts/Facts_sheets/Facts_Sheet_no_3_Illicit_tobacco_260215.pdf">the Australian authorities</a> <a href="http://www.kcl.ac.uk/health/10035-tso-2901853-chantler-review-accessible.pdf">and the UK’s 2014 Chantler Review</a>. Peer-reviewed research found that one year post-implementation of the policy, the availability of illicit tobacco in small retail outlets <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2014/04/10/tobaccocontrol-2013-051353.short">was unchanged</a> as was the proportion of smokers reporting <a href="http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/8/e005873.full">use of unbranded illicit tobacco</a>.</p>
<p>A non-exhaustive list <a href="http://www.talkingretail.com/category-news/industry-announcements/plain-cigarette-packaging-proposals-industry-response/">of tobacco companies</a> and third-party organisations in the UK have nevertheless continued to promote the conclusions of these studies: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28966048">the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association</a>, tobacco company front-groups <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/22/plain-cigarette-packaging-pro-soking-ukip-condemn-move">Forest</a> and the <a href="http://www.tobaccoretailersalliance.org.uk/">Tobacco Retailers Alliance</a>, right-wing think tank the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11363024/All-the-plain-packaging-lobby-really-wants-is-to-hear-tobacco-companies-squeal.html">Institute of Economic Affairs</a>, retail groups with fee-paying tobacco company members such as the <a href="http://www.wigantoday.net/news/letters/cost-of-tobacco-1-6672176">Petrol Retailers Association</a>, the <a href="https://www.nfrnonline.com/About-NFRN/Blogs/Paul-Baxters-Blog/Plain-packs-is-unnecessary-illogical-and-plain-nonsense">National Federation of Retail Newsagents</a> and the <a href="http://www.scottishshop.org.uk/latest-news/320-plain-packaging-letter-to-the-chancellor">Scottish Grocers’ Federation</a> and the <a href="http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Misleading-statistics-plain-packaging/story-25450415-detail/story.html">Consumer Packaging Manufacturing Alliance</a>. MPs such as <a href="http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/overregulation-of-cigarettes-threatens-rule-of-law-and-good-friday-agreement-30985390.html">Ian Paisley Jr</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/22/plain-cigarette-packaging-pro-soking-ukip-condemn-move">Nigel Farage</a> have also cited the conclusions of industry-funded studies when speaking out in opposition.</p>
<p>Following the government announcement on January 21 2015 that it planned to legislate for plain packaging prior to the May general election, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, which lists tobacco companies among its fee-paying members, sprung into action. The federation has been strongly <a href="http://www.betterretailing.com/plain-packaging-time-get-mp-involved/">encouraging its members</a> to lobby their MPs, has <a href="https://www.nfrnonline.com/News/NFRN-Members-Rally-Against-Plain-Packaging-in-Westminster">marched on parliament</a> in plain white masks and has distributed emotive postcards to the public that were pre-addressed to chancellor George Osborne, citing the illicit trade as a reason for opposing the policy.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/policy_march2015_pos_report.pdf">recent study</a> funded by Cancer Research UK of 62 small retailers found that despite 81% believing that they were dependent on tobacco sales for footfall, 94% acknowledged that profit margins on tobacco products was low and 40% were interested in reducing their reliance on tobacco.</p>
<h2>Lobbying for policy access</h2>
<p>As they scaremonger over the problem, the industry has been trying to position itself as part of the solution. </p>
<p>Many local authorities have signed the Local Government Declaration on Tobacco Control <a href="http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf">which relates to Article 5.3</a> of the world’s first global public health treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet in the last few months, documents provided to the Tobacco Control Research Group show that the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, which is <a href="http://www.the-tma.org.uk/about/">wholly financed by British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher</a> (owned by JTI) has been lobbying local authorities in both Scotland and England for access. </p>
<p>Determined to be included in local authority strategies on the illicit tobacco trade, the association commissioned a legal opinion which it sent to local authorities in February arguing that neither the declaration they had signed, nor Article 5.3 recommend that local authorities “sever links with the tobacco industry … or cease partnership working.”</p>
<h2>Collaborating with Crimestoppers</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74825/original/image-20150313-7080-1v5l0rb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74825/original/image-20150313-7080-1v5l0rb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74825/original/image-20150313-7080-1v5l0rb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74825/original/image-20150313-7080-1v5l0rb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74825/original/image-20150313-7080-1v5l0rb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74825/original/image-20150313-7080-1v5l0rb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74825/original/image-20150313-7080-1v5l0rb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unfortunate bedfellows.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crimestoppers/6959577396/in/photolist-bAZDTJ-bPTXBR-bAZish-bPTVRi-bAZd6Q-bAZcS9-bPTPZz-bAZaU7-bPTNp4-bAZ8s1-bAZ7vJ-bPTKhF-bPTJ2t-bPTEyT-bAZ1vS-bAYZb5-bPUhGi-bAZBP5-bPUe1r-bPUdrr-bAZy9j-bPUb3F-bAZfUd-bPTTuR-bPTSYM-bPUiwT-bAZnh9-bAYVqQ-8mxzUT-aFtkSp-boasx2-ecyb9h-dkYnV9-aB9f2m-bPTG3e-edndag-bAYVUs-bPTMY4-bPTB6M-bPTAtM-bPTzU4-bPU3UV-aBmuJv-bAZs8U-bPU234-bPTV4T-bAZthu-bAZ45J-bPU4ye-bPU9LZ">Crimestoppers</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Tobacco companies are also forging ahead with new partnerships with other organisations too. In January 2015, <a href="http://www.forecourttrader.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/9437/New_alliance_to_fight_tobacco_crime.html#sthash.FLOrIdSZ.SW7WGt69.dpuf">one trade magazine reported</a> how JTI had “joined forces with the independent crime fighting charity Crimestoppers to work together to stamp out the illegal tobacco trade across the UK”.</p>
<p>That same month Crimestoppers drew criticism from some in the public health community for re-iterating tobacco industry arguments that since plain packaging had been introduced in Australia “illicit had increased” and that in the UK it might be “good for fakers”. </p>
<p>Sheila Duffy, the head of ASH Scotland, said she was deeply worried by these activities: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Organisations whose purpose is to protect community safety and well-being, or to represent the interests of small businesses, are drawn into partnerships with this lethal industry and lend it their profile and respectability. We have a saying in Scotland ‘It takes a lang spoon tae sup wi’ the deil’. I suspect anyone supping with the tobacco industry is likely to get burned sooner or later.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While acknowledging that illicit tobacco is an important issue that will require ongoing enforcement by HMRC, the Chantler Review concluded that there was “no convincing evidence to suggest that standardised packaging would increase the illicit market”. </p>
<p>HMRC’s <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F403495%2FHMRC_impact_report.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFi1WO3mGEXNclz2dm7EjGgE5QveQ">own impact assessment</a> of the likely impact of plain packaging on the illicit trade stated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have seen no evidence to suggest the introduction of standardised packaging will have a significant impact on the overall size of the illicit market or prompt a step-change in the activity of organised crime groups.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These conclusions, combined with the scale of tobacco industry tactics and the fact that independent evidence from Australia shows that, contrary to industry claims, there <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cancervic.org.au%2Fdownloads%2Fplainfacts%2FFacts_sheets%2FFacts_Sheet_no_3_Illicit_tobacco_260215.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNErFNaLLqWJg69gr38Tf20fbPselA">is no evidence of an increase in illicit trade</a> since the introduction of plain packaging in 2012, illustrates that the illicit trade argument is, once again, being misused by the tobacco industry to influence policy decisions.</p>
<p>To read more about the tobacco industry and why its rally cry against the illicit trade isn’t quite as it seems, <a href="http://theconversation.com/tobacco-industry-rallies-against-illicit-trade-but-have-we-forgotten-its-complicity-38760">click here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38755/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Evans-Reeves receives funding from Cancer Research UK</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Rowell's research at the university is funded by Cancer Research UK and the New Venture Fund. He is also Director of Public Interest Investigations and blogs on oil/ energy issues at priceofoil.org</span></em></p>As the House of Lords look set to approve plain packaging, from the tobacco industry’s point of view the battle is not over yet.Karen Evans-Reeves, Research Associate for the Tobacco Control Research Group, University of BathAndrew Rowell, Senior Research Fellow, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/387602015-03-16T06:22:20Z2015-03-16T06:22:20ZTobacco industry rallies against illicit trade – but have we forgotten its complicity?<p>The battle over the introduction of plain packaging has revealed the unscrupulous tactics used by the tobacco industry to influence and counter. <a href="http://theconversation.com/unscrupulous-methods-used-by-tobacco-industry-revealed-over-illicit-trade-38755">Evidence shows a multi-faceted campaign</a> that includes using industry-funded research to falsely claim that plain packaging will lead to a rise in cigarette smuggling and illicit trade. This is despite the fact that these companies have been complicit in this very trade. </p>
<p>There is extensive historical evidence of transnational tobacco companies’ complicity in facilitating the smuggling of their own cigarettes. Complicity is suspected when companies export billions of cigarettes to countries that do not have a demand for such large volumes. The cigarettes find their way onto the black market and are smuggled into countries without paying appropriate duty.</p>
<p>As the tobacco industry wages what is arguably its most virulent battle in recent years against the regulation of its business – including <a href="http://www.cityam.com/211362/plain-cigarette-packaging-tobacco-companies-vow-legal-fight-against-branding-ban-court">threatening legal action</a> against moves <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31819348">to standardise packaging</a>. Here we provide a snapshot of the big four transnational companies operating in the UK and their relationship with the illicit trade – the list of evidence is not exhaustive. </p>
<h2>British American Tobacco</h2>
<p>In January 2000, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/31/kevinmaguire.duncancampbell">Guardian newspaper reported</a> that British American Tobacco’s (BAT) own documents revealed how the company had “condoned tax evasion and exploited the smuggling of billions of cigarettes in a global effort to boost sales and lure generations of new smokers.”</p>
<p>Later the same year, BAT also faced <a href="http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_578.pdf">serious racketeering charges in Columbia</a> “arising from its involvement in organised crime in pursuit of a massive, ongoing smuggling scheme.”</p>
<p>On July 15 2010, in an agreement between the European Commission and BAT the Tobacco Company <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/investigations/eu-revenue/bat_en.htm">paid US$200m</a> to settle smuggling-related issues.</p>
<p>Just last year, in 2014, BAT <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/consumer/article4280008.ece">was fined £650,000 for over-supplying</a> its own product to Belgium. </p>
<h2>Imperial Tobacco</h2>
<p>Imperial Tobacco, the fourth largest tobacco company in the world, and the company with the largest market <a href="http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/assets/files/cms/ITL_Response_HMT_Levy_Consultation_180215.pdf">share in the UK</a>, has also been under fire. </p>
<p>In 2002, according to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), genuine Imperial brands accounted for 55% of the 17 billion cigarettes smuggled into the UK that year. Consequently, when the company was questioned about over-supply to countries notorious for smuggling at an appearance in front of the Commons public accounts committee, to which it claimed ignorance, <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/143/2061915.htm">Imperial’s chief executive was told</a>:
“One comes to the conclusion that you are either crooks or you are stupid, and you do not look very stupid.”</p>
<p>Imperial <a href="http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_536.pdf">allegedly exported 1.7 billion</a> cigarettes a year to Latvia which was enough for every man woman and child in the country to consume 722 cigarettes a year.</p>
<h2>Philip Morris International</h2>
<p>In 2004, Philip Morris International (PMI) <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/documents/cigarette-smugg-2004/pr_en.pdf">paid the European Union US$1.25 billion</a> to settle claims over tobacco smuggling.</p>
<p>As part of this settlement, PMI agreed to produce an annual report called Project Star about illicit tobacco in the European Union. An <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/12/11/tobaccocontrol-2013-051240">evaluation of Project Star</a> by the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath found that the report “served the interests of PMI over those of the EU and its member states” and relied too heavily on their own surveys that were not independently verified. </p>
<h2>Gallaher</h2>
<p>Between 2005 and 2008, a legal battle fought by Gallaher (acquired by Japan Tobacco International in 2007) exposed its own facilitation of tobacco smuggling in which more than 20,000 internal documents between the company and a former Cypriot distributor. During the case the distributor, Ptolomeous Tlais, <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article208385.ece">alleged the company</a> set up a trading “environment” conducive to illegal activity. </p>
<h2>Japan Tobacco International</h2>
<p>In 2011, the <a href="https://www.reportingproject.net/troubles_with_big_tobacco/">Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project</a> (OCCRP) revealed that Russia and the Middle East were the “hub of smuggling by JTI distributors” and that JTI’s own investigators said the company “did almost nothing when faced with reports …” </p>
<p>In 2013, JTI <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/10/tobaccocontrol-2013-051397.abstract">remained under investigation</a> by OLAF, the European Union’s anti-fraud office for these smuggling offences. An enquiry has been made in 2015 to find out if this investigation is still ongoing.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/unscrupulous-methods-used-by-tobacco-industry-revealed-over-illicit-trade-38755">Click here for</a> more information on the tobacco industry, its involvement in illicit trade and its attempts to influence public health policy. And for a full history and documents, visit <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Main_Page">TobaccoTactics.org</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38760/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Evans-Reeves receives funding from Cancer Research UK.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Rowell's research at the university is funded by Cancer Research UK and the New Venture Fund. He is also Director of Public Interest Investigations and blogs on oil/ energy issues at priceofoil.org</span></em></p>The illicit tobacco trade is a key part of the campaign against plain packaging but tobacco companies could have done more to stem it.Karen Evans-Reeves, Research Associate for the Tobacco Control Research Group, University of BathAndrew Rowell, Senior Research Fellow, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/366222015-01-22T15:34:04Z2015-01-22T15:34:04ZMPs vote on plain packaging signals industry defeat – but there may be a sting in the tale<p>The government’s decision to allow MPs <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30926973">to vote on standardised packaging</a> before the general election will finally bring to an end the tobacco industry’s three-year campaign to prevent regulation of cigarette packs in the UK. A campaign, our research shows, in which <a href="https://theconversation.com/despite-evidence-from-tobacco-companies-review-pushes-towards-plain-packs-24298">they used misleading evidence</a> on both the illicit tobacco trade and the health benefits of standardised packaging as a tool to delay legislation.</p>
<p>That MPs will have the opportunity to vote on standardised packaging has been widely welcomed by health advocates and the medical community – and strongly criticised by tobacco industry-supported organisations such as <a href="http://www.forestonline.org/news/headlines/forest-condemns-decision-to-bring-forward-plain-packaging-legisl/">Forest</a> and <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/IEA:_History_of_Close_Ties_with_the_Tobacco_Industry">the Institute of Economic Affairs</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30926973">which said</a> it was a “gross infringement of the right of companies to use their trademarks and design their own packaging”.</p>
<p>But a <a href="http://www.kcl.ac.uk/health/10035-TSO-2901853-Chantler-Review-ACCESSIBLE.PDF?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-report-of-the-independent-review-undertaken-by-sir-cyril-chantler-pdf">wealth of evidence</a> from the independent review by Sir Cyril Chantler, indicates that that this important measure is likely to help reduce the number of children and young people taking up smoking. It is hoped that this will reduce the number of deaths from smoking-related diseases, which currently stands at around 100,000 a year in the UK. </p>
<p>If introduced, standardised packaging regulations will prohibit all on-pack branding, except the name and brand variant, printed in a standard font. In place of branding, packs will feature written and graphic health warnings, covering a minimum of 65% of the pack, in line with <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/EU_Tobacco_Products_Directive_Revision">the new EU Tobacco Products Directive</a>.</p>
<h2>The vote</h2>
<p>The decision to allow a parliamentary vote before the election <a href="https://theconversation.com/plain-cigarette-packaging-is-the-government-stalling-as-election-approaches-35438">is hugely important</a>. Despite broad cross-party support for the measure, there would inevitably have been a significant delay before standardised packaging made it back on to the parliamentary agenda – whether the government had changed after the election or not – if this decision hadn’t happened now. </p>
<p>It seems likely that standardised cigarette packaging will now be passed by parliament without any further delay. In a whipped vote last year, MPs showed their support for the idea in principle, with only 24 MPs not voting for the measure. The House of Lords has also shown its support <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06175.pdf">by tabling the amendment</a> to the Children and Families Bill in 2013 which allowed the first vote to take place.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69774/original/image-20150122-12095-1ysg3yo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69774/original/image-20150122-12095-1ysg3yo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69774/original/image-20150122-12095-1ysg3yo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69774/original/image-20150122-12095-1ysg3yo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69774/original/image-20150122-12095-1ysg3yo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69774/original/image-20150122-12095-1ysg3yo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69774/original/image-20150122-12095-1ysg3yo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New dawn for tobacco legislation in the UK.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rajanphotos/6461406153/sizes/l/in/photolist-aQYoWn-nefwGG-cvRrKU-6Mgimj-kgvoqX-mFfyAc-4uiE8q-LiCQB-4b7cZ2-a3AXrY-58Fumn-e91fkc-pzNMCn-iLJ6V6-29kxm-bK6UEt-btoPYa-jpoKT-7B5Bzj-5dvEp5-7VeGhg-fc7eY2-6KkHqH-bVVaLY-fGB2TY-7LasBk-otoN6h-ixDqJN-n5hqc7-5PoTHh-4aQ2BD-bgEeaK-c2JWAb-grUtyr-3cFZyU-nFZkVM-4Qrai1-a77v1h-fq953B-aXvg9K-PMsd3-914ied-82tyXQ-7nD31h-bUvLV8-6K2mxv-6N9RW1-dxDFxg-6VZ5Lr-MEb5K-914kty/">Rajan Manickavasagam</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The tobacco industry’s response</h2>
<p>This decision signals the death knell to the tobacco industry’s campaign but it may yet mark the start of a new battle if tobacco companies take the issue to the courts. </p>
<p>In addition to their arguments about a rise in illicit trade and the questioning of health benefits, tobacco companies have also claimed that it is an infringement of their intellectual property. They have funded front groups, such as Forest and Hands Off Our Packs, using them as a vehicle to promote these arguments to the general public. And they have commissioned research of their own in a bid to undermine the evidence base for standardised packaging. </p>
<p>But <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Tobacco_Control_Research_Group:_Evidence_on_Plain_Packaging">research conducted</a> by myself and colleagues at the University of Bath and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies last year exposed the misleading nature of tobacco industry evidence <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2014/12/10/tobaccocontrol-2014-051930.full">on both the illicit trade</a> and <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629">the health impacts</a> of standardised packaging. </p>
<p>The government’s decision to progress standardised packaging to a vote in the House of Commons seems to show that while the legislative process may have been protracted by tobacco industry opposition, it has not ultimately been undermined by it. </p>
<h2>The vote’s significance</h2>
<p>If – or, as seems likely, when – MPs vote for standardised packaging, the UK will be one of the first countries to implement the measure in Europe – Ireland is also progressing legislation – and only the second or third globally, following in Australia’s footsteps. This ground-breaking innovation in tobacco control legislation illustrates the UK’s commitment to the health of its population and of its children: every year <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/20-classrooms-of-kids-a-day-take-up-smoking.aspx">more than 200,000</a> 11 to 15-year-olds start smoking in the UK (around 170,000 in England). </p>
<p>It is to be hoped that the devolved assemblies will also follow Westminster in introducing the measure and that the UK, like Australia, will stand firm against any legal action the tobacco companies may now undertake. This important measure will be worth defending: it will contribute to a reduction in the impact of smoking on our – and our children’s – health.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Jenny Hatchard is a member of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, which is funded by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Initiative. Her recent research has also been funded by Cancer Research UK</span></em></p>The government’s decision to allow MPs to vote on standardised packaging before the general election will finally bring to an end the tobacco industry’s three-year campaign to prevent regulation of cigarette…Jenny Hatchard, Political Scientist, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.