Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Plain Packaging

Tobacco packaging plain from today

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/tobacco-packaging-plain-today

From today, cigarettes and other tobacco products can only be sold in generic plain brown and green packaging – brand and product names are now in a standard colour, position, font size and style.

In addition, a new set of 14 health warnings and images have been rolled out, enlarged to cover at least 75% of the front of the packet.

”It’s a long-overdue move which has been discussed for over 30 years,” Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) programme manager Boyd Broughton said.

”It’s not the be-all and end-all – a lot of other strategies have to be put in place in order to get to smoke-free 2025 – but we can achieve that goal.”

Old-style packets of cigarettes will still be seen for a few weeks yet: retailers have a six-week grace period for old stock to be distributed and a further six weeks for that stock to be sold.

From June 6, tobacco can be sold only in the new standardised packets.

Mr Broughton said the change came at the halfway point of the timeframe for a smoke-free New Zealand – smoking rates of less than 5% – to be achieved.

”Plain packaging is one part of a whole suite of strategies recommended to stop young people being addicted to cigarettes,” Mr Broughton said.

”We now need to look at how we can make alternatives to cigarettes far more accessible.”

Smoking rates in the Southern District Health Board region range from 18% of adults in the Invercargill electorate area to 11% in Dunedin North.

Maori are New Zealand’s biggest users of tobacco and that is reflected in Te Tai Tonga – the Maori electorate which takes in the South Island – having the highest number of smokers.

Latest Ministry of Health figures show 15.7% of adult New Zealanders smoke – as do 40% of Maori women.

Ash estimates at the current rate of decline it will take until 2030 for smoking rates to fall below 5%, and for Maori, it will take until 2050.

”It is urgent that action be taken now if we are going to reach smoke-free by 2025,” Mr Broughton said.

”It’s a bit of a sprint finish, and we need the Government to get in behind and ramp up support for people who need support to quit.”

Southern DHB health adviser Joanne Lee said plain packaging aimed to reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products, increase the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings, and reduce the ability of retail packaging to mislead consumers about the harms of smoking.

”Tobacco products are unlike any other consumer products. They kill two out of three people who smoke and more than 5000 New Zealanders die of smoking-related illnesses each year,” she said.

”Having all packaging the same will hopefully see a decrease in youth smoking.”

Otago researchers have welcomed standardised packaging for cigarettes as a good move, but say more needs to be done in the fight against tobacco.

The co-director of ASPIRE2025, Prof Janet Hoek from the University of Otago, said today the plain packaging policy represented a major step forward in protecting young people from smoking initiation.

However, she called on the Government to ensure standardised packs maintain their impact on smokers.

“On-pack warnings are very important because they allow us to reach all smokers, but we must recognise that people who have smoked for 30 years differ from young people who are experimenting or who regard themselves as social smokers.”

The warnings needed to resonate with diverse groups of smokers, and be refreshed regularly so smokers are exposed to multiple reasons for quitting, researchers said.

“We are only seven years from the Smokefree 2025 goal so we need to make sure that the policies introduced achieve maximum impact over a sustained period,” Professor Hoek said.

mike.houlahan@odt.co.nz

Smoking rates

Rates by electorate (rank out of 72; electorate; number of regular smokers; percentage of adults who are regular smokers, based on 2013 Census data).

1 – Te Tai Tonga; 22074; 26%
17 – Invercargill; 9261; 18%
34 – Clutha-Southland; 7944; 15%
43 – Waitaki; 7005; 13%
44 – Dunedin South; 6816; 14%
56 – Dunedin North; 5796; 11%

Timeline of tobacco advertising in NZ

1948 – First campaign by the Department of Health on the harms of smoking.
1963 – Cigarette advertising banned in television and radio in New Zealand.
1973 – Cigarette advertising on billboards and cinema screens banned.
1974 – Health warnings appear on cigarettes.
1990 – Smokefree Environments Act bans tobacco sponsorship of sporting events; Sponsorship Council established to replace tobacco sponsorship with Smokefree branding.
1995 – Tobacco sponsorship ends; Tobacco branding on shop exteriors banned.
1997 – Size of tobacco advertising in stores in reduced, and retailer incentives to sell cigarettes are banned.
2004 – All workplaces, schools and early childhood centres required to go smokefree.
2008 – All cigarettes and tobacco pack are required to have graphic health warnings covering 90% of the pack.
2012 – All point of sale advertising of tobacco is banned, and cigarettes and tobacco product must not be on display.
2018 – All cigarettes and tobacco must be sold in plain packaging

SOURCE: Action on Smoking and Health.

Plain cigarette packaging has arrived in New Zealand

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1803/S00201/plain-cigarette-packaging-has-arrived-in-new-zealand.htm

From today New Zealand legislation prevents the tobacco industry from using branding on their cigarette packaging. This marks the first day of a 12 week ‘wash out’ period in cleansing the market of existing stock and introducing plain packaging. These changes will mean tobacco packets will be the same standard dark brown/green colour as seen in Australia and the U.K; graphic pictures and health warnings will be enlarged to cover at least 75% of the front of tobacco packs, and all tobacco company marketing imagery will be removed.

Hāpai Te Hauora CEO, Lance Norman, offers his support for this legislation and extends on it by addressing the wider challenge of supply reduction. “We congratulate those in government who spearheaded this move, especially the Māori Affairs Select Committee and Dame Tariana Turia. We also believe that the benefits of plain packaging could be maximised by implementing this in tandem with other efforts to reduce its access, appeal and affordability”.

Tobacco researcher, Justinn Cochran, discussed her recent study at Auckland University which focused on the graphic health warnings of tobacco packaging: “We found that exposing smokers to negative health warnings, particularly those that are more disgusting can reduce how much attention they pay to tobacco packaging, which often serves as a reminder to smoke. These findings suggest that these legislative changes could be helpful in reducing the appeal of smoking and perhaps contribute towards changing attitudes around smoking.”

It is estimated that the introduction of plain packaging in Australia in 2011 accelerated the decline of smoking prevalence and led to approximately 100, 000 less smokers in the 36 months following. Norman expressed his enthusiasm about what this mean for improved Māori health, but recognises now is a key opportunity to gain momentum in supply reduction which will make a significant impact on New Zealand becoming smoke-free: “We support this move from the government to reduce the appeal of cigarettes, and we must capitalise on it by increasing the focus on supply reduction”.

“It is unreasonable to expect standardised packaging will be a silver bullet although it may be one more nail in the coffin”.

How tobacco companies in the UK prepared for and responded to standardised packaging of cigarettes and rolling tobacco

Download (PDF, 22KB)

Plain cigarette packaging laws come into effect today in Ireland

Download (PDF, 33KB)

Nearly Three Quarters of UK Smokers Avoid Paying Tobacco Duties

Major new survey reveals true impact of high Government taxes and new regulations

Government warned of risks of a second duty increase in under one year

The trade association for the UK tobacco industry is today publishing the results of the largest annual survey of 12,000 UK smokers that reveals the impact of the Government’s high tobacco taxes and shows the problem being made worse by new draconian regulations introduced this year including plain packaging.

Key findings:

– 72.5% or around 7 million smokers buy tobacco from sources where UK taxes won’t be paid including illicit tobacco and from abroad.

– 41% of smokers bought tobacco from illicit tobacco sources.

– Smokers on higher incomes (over £60,000) were as likely to buy illicit as those on low incomes (under £6,000).

– 48% of smokers who earned less than £6,000 bought tobacco from illicit sources.

– 40% of smokers who earned more than £60,000 bought tobacco from illicit sources.

– Smokers are stockpiling cheap or illicit tobacco with 53% of cigarette smokers buying 200 or more when they buy from sources that won’t have paid UK tax.

– 88% of smokers thought that tobacco prices are too high – just 2% thought that prices were too low.

– 57% of smokers said that rising prices tempt them to purchase tobacco that won’t have paid UK tax.

– Taxes on tobacco have increased by 65% since 2010 and by 5.9% at the 2017 spring Budget.

– 45% of smokers said that the ban on small tobacco packs and the introduction of mandatory plain packaging tempted them to purchase illegal tobacco. 31% said it did not tempt them.

– Analysis by Oxford Economics says that banning small tobacco packs will cost HM Treasury £2.1 billion in its first year.

– HM Treasury lost out on £3 billion from tobacco purchases which didn’t pay UK taxes in 2015-16.

– Only 12% of smokers who knew of illicit tobacco in their local area reported it to the authorities.

– This is a 40% fall compared to the 20% who reported it in 2016.

Tobacco on which UK taxes is not paid is a major issue for law enforcement and taxpayers. £3 billion of tax were lost to the illicit trade and cross border shopping in 2015-16, an amount that cannot be spent on important public services. The link between high tobacco taxes and the illicit market is acknowledged by many leading independent institutions including the Royal United Services Institute.

This survey of over 12,000 smokers supports these conclusions with the vast majority saying that tobacco prices are too high; government taxes account for up to 90% of the price of a pack of cigarettes.

The regulatory changes to the UK tobacco market this year – the ban on small packs and the introduction of plain packaging – might make the problem worse, with 45% of smokers saying they are more likely to purchase illicit tobacco because of the changes. Moreover, smokers are increasingly buying larger amounts of untaxed tobacco with 53% saying they buy 200 cigarettes or more from non-taxed sources.

In addition, government policies appear to have alienated smokers so they are not concerned when they know illegal tobacco is being sold in their local area. Just 12% of smokers who had seen illicit tobacco reported it (a 40% decrease on last year (20%) and 64% of those who did not say this is because it is ‘none of their business’ (a 7 percentage point increase on 2016). There is also growing evidence found by a recent Trading Standards report to suggest the children are increasingly accessing illicit tobacco given its widespread availability and affordability.

Overall this survey confirms that the Government’s policies do not have the support of smokers and are likely to be a large contributing factor to the high level of illegal tobacco in the UK.

Responding to this year’s findings, TMA Director General, Giles Roca, said:

“These results reveal the true extent of how the Government’s high tax policy, in creating some of the highest tobacco prices in Europe, has continued to push smokers to buy from non UK duty paid and illegal sources. High taxes have cost the Treasury billions of pounds in lost revenues whilst giving a boost to the criminals who are behind the illegal trade. There is also worrying evidence that children are increasingly accessing tobacco from these illicit sources.”

“The regulations that came fully into force this year banning small tobacco packs and introducing plain packaging are making the problem worse by pushing smokers towards the illicit market rather than encouraging them to quit.”

“There is a real risk that the problem could be made worse if the Government decides to increase tobacco duty for a second time in nine months in the upcoming Budget. These findings suggest the Government needs to completely re-think its tobacco taxation policy.”

ENDS

Notes to editors

1. The findings are drawn from a survey of 12,605 smokers from across the UK conducted in June 2017.

2. This is the fourth year that the TMA has polled smokers to find out their attitudes towards illicit tobacco.

3. £3 billion of tax from tobacco products was lost to the illicit trade (£2.4 billion) and cross border shopping £600 million) in 2015-16. HMRC, 2016, Measuring tax gaps, tobacco tax gap estimates 2015-16.

4. Oxford Economics estimated that the impact of the ban of packs of fewer than 20 cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco smaller than 30grams would be a reduction in tax revenue of £2.1 billion in its first year.

5. The Treasury raised tobacco duty at the budget in March 2017 by 2% above inflation. The autumn budget will take place on 22nd November 2017.

6. A survey undertaken by North West Trading Standards in 2015 found that 39% of children had purchased cigarettes with non-English health warnings.

7. The Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association (TMA) is the trade association for the UK’s tobacco industry. Our members are British American Tobacco UK Ltd, Gallaher Ltd (a member of the JTI Group of companies) and Imperial Tobacco Ltd.

8. Findings from previous year’s surveys can be found at http://www.the-tma.org.uk.

SOURCE The Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association (TMA

Swedish snus company sues Norwegian state over neutral packaging

Snus producer Swedish Match is taking the Norwegian state to court as it seeks an injunction to delay neutral packaging.

https://www.thelocal.no/20170925/snus-company-sues-norwegian-state-over-packaging

A change in Norwegian law requiring all tobacco products to be given neutral packaging is set to be tested in court.

That includes snus, a moist powder tobacco product related to dry snuff that is popular in Norway and Sweden. The product is consumed by placing under the upper lip for extended periods.

The law, which came in to effect on July 1st this year, means that packaging of snus, as well as of cigarettes, must now be neutral.

All tobacco companies must introduce neutral packaging on their products by July 1st 2018, the final deadline for doing so after the new law was introduced.

But the Swedish company wants a temporary injunction to be taken out over snus products, reports news agency NTB.

Swedish Match will meet representatives from Norwegian authorities in court on Monday over the issue.

The company claims that the requirement set down by the Norwegian government is in breach of EEC free trade rules, and that the deadline for the new packaging must therefore be delayed until the EEC issue has been resolved by an as-yet undefined trial.

“Regulation that constitutes such a strong intervention as standardised packaging is not in proportion to the possible health risks associated with snus,” Swedish Match spokesperson Patrik Hildingsson told newspaper VG earlier this year.

Norways’s minister for health Bent Høie told the newspaper that he was not surprised by lawsuits from tobacco companies in the wake of the regulation introduced on July 1st.

“They did it in Australia, France and the United Kingdom, and lost everywhere,” Høie told VG.

The general secretary of the Norwegian Cancer Society (Kreftforeningen) said that she was, like Høie, unsurprised at the decision of tobacco companies to pursue legal options.

“This is a well-known tactic used to challenge a political initiative to ensure fewer young people start using snus,” Anne Lise Ryel said in a press statement.

The number of young people smoking has reduced significantly over the last ten years, while the used of snus has increased, according to NTB’s report.

One third of young men and just under a quarter of young women currently used the product, according to the report, while over 10,000 young people start using it each year.

Honduras takes on Australia over tobacco plain packaging

Download (PDF, 70KB)

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.