Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Plain Packaging

Commission: Plain tobacco packaging does not damage the economy

A European Commission spokesperson has told EURACTIV.com that any loss in the tobacco industry’s turnover arising from health warnings or plain packaging should be offset against the cost of treating people with smoking-related diseases.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/commission-plain-tobacco-packaging-does-not-damage-the-economy/

The revised EU Tobacco Products Directive came into force in May 2016 and introduced stricter measures on packaging. For example, 65% of a packet’s surface should include health warning pictures and text.

Member states are also free to take additional measures, such as enforcing the use of plain packaging. France, Hungary, Ireland, Slovenia and the UK are among the countries that have already adopted this measure.

For the World Health Organisation and public health NGOs, plain packaging is an ideal tool to reduce the appeal of smoking. On the other hand, the tobacco industry claims it amounts to a “brand ban”.

Ben Townsend, vice-president for Europe at Japan Tobacco International (JTI), recently told EURACTIV that the ban simply doesn’t work.

“In Australia, the first country to introduce plain packaging more than four years ago, government data showed that the decline in smoking has actually stalled,” he said.

Threats against Dublin

When the British government introduced plain packaging, the tobacco industry attempted to block it by invoking intellectual property rights. But it lost the court case.

In Ireland, press reports referred to industry “threats” about the country’s economy.

Dublin decided that all tobacco products manufactured for sale in Ireland from 30 September 2017 must be marketed in standardised retail packaging.

Ireland’s Ministry of Health told EURACTIV in a written statement that a wash-through period would be allowed, meaning any products manufactured and placed on the market before the September cutoff date will be permitted to stay on the market for a 12-month period (i.e. until 30th September 2018).

According to the ministry, the aim of standardised packaging is to make all tobacco packets look “less attractive to consumers, to make health warnings more prominent and to prevent packaging from misleading consumers about the harmful effects of tobacco”.

But the Irish Independent reported earlier this month that the three tobacco giants (British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group and JT International) had threatened to undermine the Irish and EU economy in response to the measure.

The three companies sent a letter to former European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro Olli Rehn warning him about the catastrophic implications of plain packaging.

In the letter, according to the Irish newspaper, the tobacco firms indicated they would seek compensation for damages which could “undermine savings […] and negatively impact the Irish economy”.

European Commission: There is no loss

Contacted by EURACTIV, the European Commission confirmed that the directive allows states to introduce further measures relating to plain packaging where they are justified on public health grounds, are proportionate and do not lead to hidden barriers to trade between member states.

But the executive does not support the argument that plain packaging comes at a financial “cost” to the European economy.

“Any loss in the industry’s revenues or a country’s tax revenues from tobacco products arising from e.g. health warnings or plain packaging should be counterbalanced against the cost to the economy of treating people with smoking-related diseases,” a Commission spokesperson said.

The EU official pointed out that healthcare to treat people with smoking-related diseases costs €25.3 billion every year in the EU and an additional €8.3bn is lost to absenteeism/premature retirement.

“This is a total cost of €33.6bn a year,” the spokesperson emphasised, adding that a 2% reduction in smoking alone would translate into annual healthcare savings of approximately €506 million for the EU.

Philip Morris to pay millions to Australia on failed plain packaging case

Big tobacco battle: Final costs figure kept secret but reported as being up to €33.36m

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/philip-morris-to-pay-millions-to-australia-on-failed-plain-packaging-case-1.3149956

Tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris will be forced to pay millions of dollars in legal fees to Australia after its failed case against plain packaging laws.

Big tobacco companies have fought vigorously against the Australian government’s plain packaging laws since they were introduced in 2011.

By banning logos and distinctive-coloured cigarette packaging, Australia’s laws went further than the advertising bans and graphic health warnings introduced in many other countries.

Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco quickly attempted to have the laws overturned through a constitutional challenge in the high court, which they lost in 2012.

Philip Morris Asia then took a case to the permanent court of arbitration in 2012. It tried to use the conditions of a 1993 trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong to argue a ban on trademarks breached foreign investment provisions.

Corporate giant

The corporate giant not only lost but was criticised by the court, which found the case to be “an abuse of rights”.

The court published a decision on the payment of costs at the weekend, which it made in March. The decision, which brought five years of proceedings to a close, found Philip Morris Asia liable to pay Australia’s multimillion-dollar claim for legal costs.

The final costs figure was kept secret but Fairfax Media reported it as being up to AUS $50 million (€33.36 million).

Australia successfully argued Philip Morris must pay its court fees and expenses, the cost of expert witnesses, travel, and solicitors and counsel. It also claimed interest.

Australia had told the court its claim was modest and was a small proportion of what the tobacco giant had sought in damages.

Critical importance

It said Philip Morris had sought to challenge a public health measure of critical importance to Australia, making it important to “mount a robust and comprehensive response to all aspects of the claim”.

Philip Morris had tried to argue the government’s costs were unreasonable for a “legal team that consisted primarily of public servants”.

The company argued that two similar countries, Canada and the US, had never claimed more than US$4.5m and US$3m respectively in costs and fees. Australia’s claim was much more than that.

“The claimant emphasises that, even excluding the fees of four outside counsel, the respondent’s government lawyers claim over [REDACTED]in fees, even though Australia itself pays them ‘very modest government salaries’,” the court’s decision read.

But the court found Australia’s claim was reasonable, rejecting Philip Morris’s arguments.

“Taking into account the complexity of issues of domestic and international law relevant in this procedure, particularly for a government team usually not engaged in such disputes, the Tribunal does not consider that any of these costs claimed by the Respondent were unreasonable and should not have been incurred,” it found.

“In making this assessment, the Tribunal also takes into consideration the significant stakes involved in this dispute in respect of Australia’s economic, legal and political framework, and in particular the relevance of the outcome in respect of Australia’s policies in matters of public health.”

Earlier this year big tobacco failed in a separate bid to have the laws overturned by the World Trade Organisation. The decision was widely seen as a green light for more countries to follow Australia’s lead.

How to measure the black market for cigarettes

Popular methods include surveys, statistical analysis and rooting through rubbish

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/06/economist-explains-4

LAST month Britain joined a growing number of countries in which cigarettes can only be sold in plain packs. Tobacco companies claim that the move will boost the sales of contraband cigarettes by making them trickier to spot. There is one way to tell whether this actually happens: track how black-market sales change. But how can such sales be measured?

There are about a dozen ways to do it, of which three are the most commonly used, says Hana Ross of the University of Cape Town. The first is a comparison of the number of cigarettes sold legally (from records on cigarette taxes paid) with the number of cigarettes consumed (which is calculated from surveys asking people how much they smoke). The gap between the two figures is the estimated share of the black market. The second commonly used method is to ask smokers where they have bought cigarettes and how much they have paid; smokers might also be asked to show the most recent pack they have bought. A price lower than that of legally sold brands suggests a contraband sale; some smokers openly admit that they have bought contraband cigarettes, or show a telltale pack.

The third method is to look at discarded cigarette packs and count up each that looks like a black-market purchase, for instance by missing its tax sticker or displaying a brand that is not officially registered. Discarded packs can be collected from vendors who sell cigarettes by the stick, from litter in the streets, or by rummaging through rubbish bins or the hauls of refuse-collection trucks. (“We dress them as if they are going into space”, says Ms Ross about the recruits who rummage through the heaps.)

Each of these methods has its weakness. Smokers may, for example, be reluctant to mention purchases of cigarettes they know to be contraband. They may also claim to smoke less than they actually do (especially if researchers come round soon after a major anti-smoking campaign). Ideally, multiple methods should be applied to get a better estimate of the total black-market sales. And trends over time are best measured by applying the same method. Such studies are conducted in a growing number of countries. Just because a sale occurs in the shadows does not mean it is impossible to cast a smouldering light on it.

Cheaper cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco slows smoking’s downward spiral

Yesterday morning, Australia’s tobacco industry woke to the latest chapter in the book documenting its inexorable decline.

https://theconversation.com/cheaper-cigarettes-roll-your-own-tobacco-slows-smokings-downward-spiral-78745

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released data from its 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, which it has conducted every three years since 1985.

While it was always going to be hard to show even further decline in teenage smoking from what was an already very low level, it’s happened again.

The proportion of teenagers (aged 12-17) who have never smoked more than 100 cigarettes significantly increased between 2013 and 2016, from 95% to 98%. Smoking more than 100 cigarettes in a lifetime has long been used in Australia as a benchmark question to sort curious, experimental smokers from more committed and addicted smokers.

Younger people also continued to delay when they first smoked their first full cigarette. This increased in the 14 to 24-year-olds from 14.2 years in 1995 to 16.3 in 2016 (a statistically significant increase from 15.9 years in 2013).

Catch ‘em young

The tobacco industry knows it needs to attract and addict new consumers to replace those who stop smoking through quitting and death. As a 1981 report sent to the then vice-president of research and development at Philip Morris put it:

Younger adult smokers are the only source of replacement smokers … If younger adults turn away from smoking, the industry must decline, just as a population which does not give birth will eventually dwindle.

Australia’s plain packaging legislation, implemented in December 2012, was aimed at reducing teenage Australians taking up smoking. As the health minister who introduced it, Nicola Roxon emphasised in April 2010 when announcing the policy:

We’re targeting people who have not yet started, and that’s the key to this plain packaging announcement – to make sure we make it less attractive for people to experiment with tobacco in the first place.

As Australian young people have turned away from smoking, the tobacco industry is left scrambling for new ways to addict young customers to nicotine.

Total smoking levels remain level

The proportion of people of all ages who smoke was also not good news for the tobacco industry.

The percentage of people aged 14 and over who smoke daily is down from 12.8% in 2013 to 12.2% in 2016. While any decline is welcome, this was less than it should have been, and the first time in two decades that a statistically significant fall was not recorded.

There are several factors likely to be responsible for the previously brake-less downward slide in smoking.

Long-time campaigners Mike Daube and Todd Harper have set out nine strategies the Australian tobacco industry has used so it can keep earning from the deaths of two in three Australian smokers likely to die from using their products.

Two critical factors here are price discounting and the dramatic rise of roll-your-own tobacco.

How price discounting works

Plain packaging means brand differentiation is gone as all packs look the same, except for the written brand name. So, the ability of branding to convince gullible smokers that premium (expensive) brands are somehow “better” and worth spending more on than cheaper, budget brands goes out the window.

After plain packaging was introduced, there was an industry-wide decision to cut prices to compete with lower priced brands for market share. There were large tobacco tax rises in the run-up to plain packs being introduced (25% in 2010) and a further 12.5% each year from 2013 to 2016.

Again, the tobacco companies cut their margins by desperately trying to keep some brands below A$20 a pack, a price known to trigger quitting.

These practices may see renewed interest in floor pricing of tobacco products, when a price is set below which a product cannot be sold.

Rise in roll-your-own tobacco

Tobacco companies have also aggressively pushed cheaper roll-your-own tobacco by introducing loose tobacco with cigarette brand names. The tax in roll-your-own tobacco will rise from September 2017, which may see a further round of price discounting to try and stop people quitting.

The use of roll-your-own cigarettes has gone from 26% of smokers in 2007, to 33% in 2013 and to 36% in 2016. Lower price is one factor driving this, but so too are the quite erroneous beliefs that roll-your-own tobacco somehow contains fewer additives and is less harmful, an issue I will explore in my next column.

The increase in roll-your-own cigarettes since 2007 has been largest among smokers aged under 40 (increase of 82% for young adults and 70% for smokers in their 30s between 2007 and 2016). Between 2013 and 2016 roll-your-own use in smokers in their 30s jumped from 29% to 37%.

National campaign wheels fallen off

Sustained and adequately funded mass media campaigns are a vital component of strategies health authorities recommended to change health behaviours, like smoking.

And with smoking, one of the most obvious pieces of evidence comes from ex-smokers about why they stopped smoking. There are light-years between the answer that has always been given (concern about health) and everything else (cost, social unacceptability, pregnancy etc).

In this study of smokers in 20 US communities, 91.6% of ex-smokers nominated “concern for your own current or future health” as why they quit compared with 46.5% who nominated “pressure from family, friends or co-workers”.

Without large scale, on-going campaigns that reach large proportions of the population with unforgettable, motivating information about why smoking is so harmful, the core driver of quitting and not starting smoking may wane.

Regrettably, Australia’s world famous national tobacco campaign that started in 1997 and has been used by many other countries, has been mothballed since 2013 when the Coalition government took office.

Smokers still get sporadic small bursts of quit smoking ads on television in some states from state health departments. But they are not getting a fraction of the highly motivating exposures that were a big part of our earlier rapid declines. This absence is almost certainly a major factor explaining the slow down in people quitting smoking.

E-cigarettes

The latest stats show that while around 31% of smokers (ie 3.8% of the 14+ population) had ever tried e-cigarettes, 20% seemed to have done so out of curiosity (once or twice) with only 4.4% currently using them (the remaining 6.8% no longer use them). Just 1.5% of smokers were using e-cigarettes daily (0.8% of ex-smokers and 0.2% of never smokers).

There’s no evidence from these very small numbers that e-cigarette use is contributing to falling smoking in Australia.

Many are concerned that the tobacco industry (which has bought into vapourisers big time) has a business plan to have smokers vape and smoke, not vape instead of smoking. If that plays out, increases in vaping may in fact act to further slow people from quitting smoking. The next few years will provide important information on this important issue.

Hong Kong must adopt plain tobacco packaging, say health advocates

Three-quarters of Hongkongers support restrictions on logos, colours and brand images on cigarette and other tobacco product packs in a bid to further reduce smoking

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1959203/hong-kong-must-adopt-plain-tobacco-packaging-say-health

We’ve all chosen products purely based on packaging – a bag of chips at the supermarket, a novel at the bookstore, a photo of a dish on a menu. Even when dealing with people, we tend to let first impressions guide our future interactions with them.

The power of packaging to directly influence one’s perception of something or someone is so strong that it’s no surprise the World Health Organisation advocates plain packaging for tobacco products, which kill almost six million people every year.

Momentum for plain packaging has steadily gained in the past few years, starting with Australia’s implemention in December 2012, and now the measure looks to be gaining traction worldwide.

“We’re beginning to see the globalisation of plain packaging,” says Benn McGrady, a legal adviser to the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Plain packaging of tobacco products restricts or prohibits the use of logos, colours, brand images and promotional information on packaging other than brand and product names displayed in a standard colour and font style.

Earlier this month on May 20, France and Britain each began implementation of plain packaging. Ireland is also preparing to introduce the measure this year; Hungary and Norway are in the process of developing laws to implement plain packaging; Singapore is undertaking a public consultation with a view to introducing plain packaging; and several other countries, including New Zealand, South Africa and Turkey, have either expressed an intent to implement the measure or are in the policy development process.

Will Hong Kong be next? Antonio Kwong, chairman of the Council on Smoking and Health (Cosh), says Cosh has been advocating the government implement plain packaging since 2012.

About three-quarters of Hongkongers have expressed support for plain packaging, Kwong says, citing results from the 2015 Tobacco Control Policy-related Survey commissioned by Cosh and conducted by Hong Kong University’s School of Public Health to collect public opinion towards current and future tobacco control policies.

“In view of the global successful examples and WHO’s appeal, Cosh recommends the government to actively consider adopting plain packaging in two to three years,” says Kwong.

The WHO is stepping up its drive for plain packaging by making it the theme of this year’s World No Tobacco Day, held annually on May 31 since 1988. WHO has launched a new 86-page guide to plain packaging of tobacco products, which gives governments the latest evidence and guidance on implementing the measure.

“Plain packaging reduces the attractiveness of tobacco products. It kills the glamour, which is appropriate for a product that kills people,” says WHO director-general Dr Margaret Chan, a former Hong Kong director of health. “It restricts tobacco advertising and promotion. It limits misleading packaging and labelling. And it increases the effectiveness of health warnings.”

McGrady says there’s a “strong evidence base” supporting the implementation of plain packaging, including more than 80 peer-reviewed empirical studies, three systematic reviews of the evidence, and an official post-implementation review from Australia.

“As a whole, this body of evidence points in one direction, which says plain packaging is an effective public health intervention,” says McGrady.

Smoking prevalence has been steadily declining in Australia for years and, even if plain packaging hadn’t been introduced the rate, was projected to be 17.77 per cent among those aged 14 and older in 2015. However, research shows that between December 2012 and September 2015, there was an additional 0.55 percentage point fall in smoking prevalence attributable to the packaging changes – meaning a 17.21 per cent prevalence – McGrady says.

This equates to more than 108,000 fewer smokers in Australia as a consequence of plain packaging – a “very big” number, says McGrady. “Plain packaging has decreased tobacco use in Australia beyond trend; it has increased the speed of the downward trajectory.”

Tobacco packs act as a prominent form of tobacco advertising and promotion, not only at the point of sale, but also after, says the WHO report. Tobacco products are “badge products”, meaning they have a high degree of social visibility and that consumers identify with the brand image cultivated on product packaging.

“As internal tobacco industry documents recognise, packaging plays an increasingly important role in promoting tobacco products as other restrictions on tobacco advertising and promotion are tightened,” the report says.

In the evidence gathered in the report, studies show that packaging – in particular colour – affects consumers’ perceptions of risk. Early evidence of this can be found in internal tobacco industry documents released to the public through litigation, the report says.

For example, a 1990 tobacco industry document recognised that so-called “lower delivery products” were featured in lighter packs because they have a clean healthy connotation. Other studies tested consumer reactions to ultra-light products packaged in different colour packs. Consumers ranked the perceived tar level of products in different colour packs and commented on factors such as the harshness and strength of the flavour of different colour packs with otherwise identical products inside them.

There’s also evidence that plain packaging influences the intention and increases the urgency of smokers to quit. It also reduces active smoking and the display of tobacco packs in outdoor settings.

Plain packaging also prevents misleading packaging, the report says, such as labels like “light”and “mild”, which suggest products are less harmful to health than regular brand variants when this is not the case. Rather, consumers compensate for the lower tar and nicotine yields in these products, including by smoking more of a cigarette and taking deeper puffs.

With all this compelling evidence, why aren’t more governments rushing to implement plain packaging?

“I think the resistance to tobacco control and plain packaging are driven by the tobacco industry using its deep pockets to oppose implementation of good public health policies. It’s political; it’s nothing to do with evidence or public policy,” says McGrady. “That’s what’s slowing down tobacco control globally.”

Tobacco industry opposition to plain packaging dates back more than 20 years, McGrady says. Most recently the world’s top four tobacco companies challenged Britain’s new plain packaging law, arguing that it unlawfully took away their intellectual property. The High Court struck down the challenge and the law came into effect on May 20.

“It is wrong to view this issue purely in monetised terms,” the ruling said. “There is a significant moral angle embedded in the regulations, which is about saving children from a lifetime of addiction, and children and adults from premature death and related suffering and disease.”

One person dies from a tobacco-caused disease approximately every six seconds according to the WHO. Annual deaths are forecast to rise from 6 million to more than 8 million by 2030.

In Hong Kong, the prevalence of daily cigarette smokers among persons aged 15 and over has decreased steadily from 23.3 per cent in 1982 to 10.5 per cent in 2015 (except for years from 2000 to 2002). Still, a Chinese University study last year found that smoking costs the city HK$11.3 billion each year, in health care expenses and productivity losses related to tobacco.

The WHO recommends implementing plain packaging as part of a comprehensive approach to tobacco control that includes large graphic health warnings and comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

Says Kwong: “Through the implementation of a comprehensive and multipronged strategy, including a policy of long-term tobacco tax increases to reduce affordability, expansion of statutory no-smoking areas, restriction of tobacco promotion and packaging, the banning of tobacco product displays at points of sale, raising the minimum age to buy cigarettes to 21, increasing resources for smoking cessation services, strengthening smoke-free education and promotion, placing responsibility on venue managers for smoking offences in their premises etc, we hope the smoking prevalence will drop to below 5 per cent in the near future.”

Big Tobacco is losing the fight to stop plain packaging of cigarettes

Dr Enrico Bonadio, a Senior Lecturer in the City Law School, says the tobacco industry’s bid to avoid plain packaging by relying on legal arguments around trade and intellectual property rights, is being systematically dismissed by courts around the world.

https://www.city.ac.uk/news/2017/may/big-tobacco-is-losing-the-fight-to-stop-plain-packaging-of-cigarettes

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.

These packs are now required by new regulations 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.

The legislative move has been recommended to all countries by the World Health Organisation to reduce the attractiveness of smoking and eventually reduce consumption. Australia was the first country to introduce such strict packaging requirements in December 2012. France and, of course, the UK have since followed suit.

It follows significant research that shows these new standardised cigarette packs are much less appealing to consumers – and young people especially.
The industry’s legal defeats

No wonder tobacco companies have challenged the measure in the courts. They have argued that it is useless, too harsh – and is an infringement of their fundamental and intellectual property rights, especially trademarks. Yet, their claims are based on weak arguments and have been rejected by both the High Court of England and Wales and the Court of Appeal.

The tobacco industry has faced numerous courtroom defeats of late. Last year Uruguay won a landmark case 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.

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.

The decision has not been officially announced, but a confidential draft of the interim ruling was leaked to the media 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.

A domino effect

This is a blow to the industry. The short-term consequences of the WTO ruling – Imperial Tobacco’s shares fell more than 2% after the decision was leaked – 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.

After all, more and more countries seem interested in adopting standardised packaging. As well as France and the UK, Ireland and Norway will introduce packaging restrictions later in 2017, and Hungary in 2018. Many other states are debating similar measures, including New Zealand, Canada, Belgium, Slovenia, Belgium, Singapore and Thailand.

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.

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.

Cigarette plain packaging is here – but a tobacco-free society looks a long way off

The UK has, almost, led the world when it comes to tackling one of the tobacco industry’s leading promotional tools.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/health/cigarette-plain-packaging-tobacco-rules-introduced/

 

Australia was the first country to require cigarettes to be sold in plain, standardised packaging in December 2012. The United Kingdom became the second to pass similar legislation, on 20 May last year, with Ireland and France following suit.

Companies had a year’s grace period where they could get rid of old stock that no longer complied with the rules. The new legislation means all wording on cigarette packs must be confined to a uniform size and designed on a muddy green background. There is to be no misleading information such as “low tar” or “organic”, and a ban on flavoured cigarettes and flavoured rolling tobacco

In the UK, standardised packaging was introduced in addition to implementation of the revised EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). The UK’s legislation goes further than the EU requires on tobacco taxes, on advertising and on packaging and labelling – a case of the UK leading the continent rather than the other way around. This is one area of public health, at least, that Brexit will not effect.

“This is a measure the UK led Europe in introducing and the legislation was passed with strong cross party political support,” Deborah Arnott, chief executive of health charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), told i: “It therefore seems highly improbable if not impossible that any incoming government would see fit to reintroduce brightly coloured and glitzy branding on cigarette packs.”

As far as what impact the measures will have, Ms Arnott says it is “too soon to tell” for the UK. “The impact was always expected to be longer-term as young people today have grown up with the glitzy packaging, but the evidence from Australia is that we can expect to see an increase in attempts to quit and decrease in smoking prevalence before too long.”

£2,000 a year

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) estimates that the average smoker will still spend more than £2,000 each year on tobacco, enough to fill a family’s food trolley for six months, buy a pair of Premier League season tickets, or even take the kids to Disneyland, the charity says. It believes price – new ‘minimum duty’ means cigarettes can not be sold for less than £8.82 – is one of the biggest deterrents to smoking and that the higher the price of a pack, the more people will quit.

Alison Cox, CRUK’s director of prevention, said: “Smoking is still the single largest preventable cause of death in the UK and kills around 96,000 people every year – this cannot continue. For decades the tobacco industry has got away with promoting their products in slickly designed packaging, which distracts from the true lethal and addictive nature of the contents.”

She said the full introduction of the new rules over the weekend “marks a momentous victory in the battle for a tobacco free future”.

She added: “Standardised packs will help protect the next generation from an addiction that kills around half of all regular smokers. But there’s still a lot more to do – there is a real opportunity for the next government to help the UK’s 9 million smokers quit for good.”

Big tobacco has already tried to get around the rules. The maker of Marlboro cigarettes had been by selling branded durable tins that look just like ordinary cigarette packets – taking advantage of the grace period. in the run-up to the change, Philip Morris distributed tin containers, the same size as a 10-pack of cigarettes, to shops around the country, including big chains such as Sainsbury’s, Londis and Budgens, with the apparent aim to allow consumers to use the tins as refills.

Plain packaging campaigner Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North said that the move was an “immature trick” and an attempt by the company to “retain” its branding. “I hope people will soon put them into their bins and they’ll find their way to the recycling centre,” he said.

‘This will save lives’

Smoking remains a leading cause of preventable death in the UK, accounting for around 80,000 deaths a year in England alone. The British Medical Association (BMA), which has lobbied in favour of standardised packaging for many years, said the new regulations are “a significant step forward and will save lives.”.

Professor Parveen Kumar, BMA board of science chair, said: “We know that children who recognise brand images including packaging, are far more likely to start smoking. Standardised packaging will help to eradicate this marketing power for tobacco companies, and will increase the impact of health warnings.

“We must not stop there though. Doctors want to see a tobacco-free society by 2035, and the BMA is calling on the next government to introduce a new ‘Tobacco Control Plan’, replacing the current, outdated strategy on smoking, and a ‘polluter pays’ levy on tobacco companies. This would generate funding to support smoking cessation programmes, and would see many more smokers kicking the habit.”

Brands Test Limits as UK Introduces Plain Tobacco Packaging

The UK is now the second country in the world and the first in Europe to require cigarettes to be sold in plain, standardized packaging, following the lead of Australia, which implemented the first such measure in December 2012.

http://brandchannel.com/2017/05/22/uk-tobacco-plain-packaging-052217/

In May 2016, new EU legislation dictated how tobacco products are manufactured, produced and sold across Europe. The revised rules, called the Tobacco Products Directive, banned certain products from sale such as flavored cigarettes (except menthol). Retailers were given 12 months, until May 20th, to sell old products and comply with the new laws, or face stiff fines or criminal prosecution.

In tandem with the new EU rules taking effect, the UK government’s plain packaging legislation came into force, introducing standardized packaging of tobacco products to limit the impact of logos, colors, brand images or promotional information on packaging other than brand names and product names that are displayed in a standard colour and typeface.

Standardised packaging design, including; shape, size, material and opening mechanisms. The UK’s Standardised Packaging Regulations aim to unify (and not make stand out) the material, size, shape and opening mechanisms of tobacco packaging; create a drab, off-putting color (a sickly brownish green) of tobacco packaging, as well as standarized font, size and positioning of text.

No glossy finishes to catch the light now; the tobacco packs come with a matt finish. Prices aren’t printed on the packaging, but health care warnings have increased in size with graphic images depicting the adverse health impact of smoking. Text is only in Helvetica font, with no logo or typeface of a brand name or variety name permitted.

Failure to comply with retailer guidelines for selling e-cigarettes and tobacco products may result in a three month custodial sentence, a fine, or both, following a summary conviction.

Health groups have welcomed the measure and are hopeful as new smoker numbers continue to decline in the UK with about 17% of the UK adult population currently smokers. Smoking advocates decry the move as an anti-choice effort by a nanny state that “infantilise” consumers and will make no difference to public health. Smokers’ rights group Forest also told the BBC that the new rules “treat adults like naughty children.”

No matter: they’re stuck with the compulsory standardised packaging with larger, health warnings on two-thirds of the front and back of any packet is “the ugliest colour in the world.”

Hazel Cheeseman, a member of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), told the BBC that the packaging itself has been shown to be a “form of advertising” that cigarette companies call “their silent salesman. Branding and advertising is one of the things that helps to recruit young people into smoking. So removing the branding features, making the health warnings bigger and more prominent, is intended to protect young people from taking up smoking in the future.”

Two-thirds of smokers start before age 18, according to Cancer Research UK, so the organization supports removing branding from cigarette packs in order to reduce their attractiveness to children. Research has shown that young people are attracted to the color and design of cigarette packs.

Scotland was the first country in the UK to support plain packaging for tobacco products in a change that could lead to 300,000 fewer smokers in the UK over the next year.

Testing the legislation, Marlboro-maker Philip Morris introduced durable tins that look like ordinary cigarette packets. The tins, available at chains including Sainsbury’s, Londis and Budgens, sport Marlboro’s logo and distinctive branding, the required deterrent photos and the warning message, “Smoking kills.” No chance they’d get away with that, the Guardian reports.

“Research shows that packs of 10 appeal to young people and the price conscious,” said Karen Reeves-Evans, of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath. “By offering packs of 10 in reusable tins, Philip Morris International is knowingly increasing the lifespan of packs of 10 and promoting its brand, if smokers decant their cigarettes into these small branded tins. The fact that these tins appeared almost immediately prior to the branding and size restrictions coming into force is suspicious.”

Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North added, “It’s against the whole spirit of what’s intended with the plain packaging legislation. The tobacco companies will stop at nothing in order to retain their branding and sell a product that everyone knows has such tremendous health risks. It’s an immature trick and I hope people will soon put them into their bins and they’ll find their way to the recycling centre.”

Philip Morris rival JTI Gallaher also issued aluminum tins for its Benson & Hedges, Mayfair and Camel brands in the run-up to the plain packaging laws, described by Ireland’s former health minister James Reilly as “extremely cynical.”

As tobacco brands and activists balk at the changes, Alison Cox, Cancer Research UK’s director of prevention, told the Guardian that “Today marks a momentous victory in the battle for a tobacco free future. Standardised packs will help protect the next generation from an addiction that kills around half of all regular smokers.”

What’s keeping Indonesia, China addicted to smoking?

A World Trade Organisation ruling backing Australia’s hard line on cigarette packaging highlights a gulf between Asia and much of the rest of the world

http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2094162/whats-keeping-indonesia-china-addicted-smoking

It was during a trip to Egypt in 1995 when Edison Siahaan first felt that something wasn’t quite right with his throat. Four decades had gone by since he started smoking at the age of 15. His voice had been raspy for years. Maybe this was just the dry air tickling the back of his throat.

But it wasn’t dry air and it wasn’t a tickle. It was cancer. Doctors excised a portion of his trachea leaving a hole the size of a nickel at the base of the throat. He lost his bank job because for a year following the surgery he couldn’t speak. Even now, what passes for speech makes him sound like the emperor from Star Wars only with more hissing. Now 79, Siahaan, a kindly old gent with a full head of hair, is tough to look at. “I see kids smoking all the time here,” he says, gesturing back and forth along the length of the street from his front room. “It makes me sick to think they are going to ruin their life. I point at this hole in my throat and say to them: do you want to look like this?”

Asian men already account for the lion’s share of the world’s tobacco related illnesses, yet a World Trade Organisation ruling this week that upheld tough anti-smoking rules introduced in Australia in 2012, showed that if anything, the gap in attitudes between Asia and the rest of the world may be widening.

“Tobacco in China is absolutely devastating,” says Dr Angela Pratt who helps handle external relations at the World Health Organisation’s office for the Western Pacific in Manila.

In China, roughly 300 million people smoke, according to the WHO. Most of these are men. More than half of Chinese adults are smokers and two-thirds of young Chinese men start smoking. While smoking rates are steady, the absolute number of smokers is rising in line with population growth. Chinese smokers account for 44 per cent of all the cigarettes puffed in the world. At current rates 200 million Chinese will die this century from tobacco-related illnesses, Pratt says. “That’s a huge burden. The people afflicted are often the sole income earners,” she says.

This week, the WTO ruled that Australia’s plain packaging rules, which ban branding and distinctive colouring from packs of cigarettes, were a legitimate public health measure. The ruling knocked back a complaint from Indonesia, Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic, who said the rule amounted to an illegal trade barrier. As the former chief of staff to the Australian health minister who introduced the plain packaging measures, Nicola Roxon, Pratt helped develop the policy, bulletproofing it from court challenges from tobacco companies and governments.

“We were proud to be taking on plain packaging,” Pratt recalls. “But we wanted to be sure to be able to defend it.”

Together with graphic warnings and taxes that will push cigarettes up to A$40 (HK$230) per pack by 2020, the measure is credited with accelerating the fall in Australia’s smoking rate. The most recent figures show about 13 per cent of Australian adults smoke and less than five per cent of school children. A dozen countries, from Canada to Chile and Britain to Uruguay are either introducing similar rules or seriously considering them.

At the other extreme is Indonesia. The most recent figures, which date back to 2013, show 240,000 Indonesians die every year from tobacco related illnesses. Two-thirds of Indonesian men and boys, over the age of 15, smoke, according to the Ministry of Health.

Most troubling are the numbers of new young smokers throughout the archipelago, says Dr Widyastuti Soerojo, chair of the tobacco control unit at the Indonesian Public Health Association. She says some 16 million Indonesian youngsters between the ages of 10 and 19 experiment with smoking every year – a rate of about 44,000 every day.

Indonesia is among the few countries that are not signatories to the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which among other things aims to curb the appeal of smoking for children.

Indonesia television and billboards feature handsome intrepid men jumping out of planes or into business meetings. Roadside kiosks individually sell clove cigarettes, known as kretek, for as little as 10 US cents each.

Governments in Jakarta and local governments in vote-rich provinces, such as Central Java and East Java, fend off calls for more curbs on smoking saying they provide badly needed jobs to rural families.

But mechanisation and growing taste for machine-made cancer sticks rather than hand-rolled types, belie that argument. Tobacco accounts for about half of one per cent of all jobs in Indonesia, according to the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance. Campaigners are quick to point out the country’s richest families have tobacco to thank.

The Hartonos, Indonesia’s richest family and worth US$17 billion, own kretek maker Djarum.

Indonesian cigarette sales totaled US$16 billion in 2015. Sampoerna, which is more than 90 per cent owned by Philip Morris, is Indonesia’s most valuable company.

“The government treats tobacco like it’s a normal industry but really this is neocolonialism by tobacco companies,” Dr Soerojo says.

In China, the culprit for health advocates is the China National Tobacco Corporation, which controls more than 98 per cent of the local market. Implementation of the UN tobacco convention falls to the Ministry of Industry, which is also home to the body that owns China Tobacco. “A parallel would be, back when I was with the health ministry, meetings were chaired by a representative of Philip Morris,” Pratt said. “There’s plenty of room for conflict of interest.”

Still, there’s progress. Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, with a combined population of more than 60 million, have banned smoking in public areas. China hiked taxes on cigarettes in 2015. The move resulted in a 20 per cent jump in the retail prices of the cheapest brands. Owing to its massive market, that move alone resulted in a more than 2 per cent drop in world tobacco consumption in 2016.

In Indonesia, smoking is banned in most public spaces but enforcement peters out the further one travels from the centre of Jakarta. Indonesia introduced graphic warnings on packaging in 2012 and hiked excise taxes on cigarettes by 15 per cent in 2016. Even so, additional hikes for this year were scotched. Glimmers of light are on the horizon, says WHO’s Pratt, but plain packaging is still “a long way off”.

For Siahaan, his government’s halting go-slow approach is proof that cigarettes are insidious, and for him, more ruinous than narcotics. “At least with drugs you can get help,” he gasps. “For cigarettes, you see them everywhere.”

Tobacco firms denied plain pack appeal

The UK supreme court has made a final decision, denying tobacco firms permission to appeal against plain packaging.

http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/markets/tobacco/tobacco-firms-denied-plain-pack-appeal-12-04-2017

The decision means that all cigarettes sold in the UK after 20 May must come in the standardised packaging that’s been increasingly appearing in shops during the trial period over the last year.

There will also no longer be packs of 10 cigarettes available in a move designed to deter young people from taking up smoking. For the same reason menthol cigarettes are being phased out but more gradually. They will disappear from shelves by May 2020.

Last November, British American Tobacco, Imperial Brands, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and Philip Morris International went to the supreme court after the court of appeal claiming that the plain pack law would infringe their human and intellectual property rights but he appeal was rejected.

Any hopes the companies might have had that there was still a slim chance a challenge could be mounted will have been dashed by the final ruling.

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, welcomed the supreme court’s decision, saying: “Standardised packaging will cut smoking rates and reduce suffering, disease and avoidable deaths.”