Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

June, 2011:

NZ monitors Australian plain packaging bid

28 June 2011

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/nz-monitors-australian-plain-packaging-bid/story-e6frf7jx-1226083752647

THE New Zealand minister who wants cigarettes sold in plain packets says she won’t be deterred by threats of legal action by a tobacco company against the Australian government.

However, Associate Health Minister Tariana Turia can’t confirm the government will go ahead with the policy.

“We’re keeping an eye on Australia, we want to align our work with the work they’re doing over there,” she told One News.

“It’s something that needs to be looked into really carefully – we don’t want to get ourselves into a situation where we’re wasting a lot of taxpayer money fighting these tobacco companies because they’re incredibly wealthy.”

Philip Morris has served a notice of legal claim on the Australian government, which sets a mandatory three-month period for the two sides to negotiate an outcome.

“Failing that, we aim to go ahead with a compensation claim for the loss to our business in Australia that would result from plain packaging,” the company said.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

Related Coverage

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Plain packaging in Australia is due to start in a year’s time, which would make it the first country in the world to enforce the anti-smoking measure.

The action Philip Morris is taking is under a trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong, and New Zealand has a similar treaty which covers intellectual property such as trademarks.

Philip Morris is arguing its trademark is protected and plain packaging will be detrimental to it.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says Philip Morris could use the same tactic against New Zealand.

“It shows how dangerous these investment rights treaties are when a multi-national company has more rights than a sovereign government to regulate in the interests of public health,” he said.

Should Philip Morris win, the Australian government could have to pay billions in compensation.

The Greens, and academic Jane Kelsey, are also concerned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is being negotiated could cause similar problems.

“We call on the government to release the draft text of the intellectual property section of the TPP talks with the USA,” Dr Norman said.

“We need to know what rights our government is handing over to Philip Morris in those negotiations.”

The Public Health Association (PHA) said it was “appalled” by news of the legal action.

“It is beyond immoral that a business that sells addictive killers to young people is now threatening court action,” said PHA national executive director Dr Gay Keating.

“The PHA applauds Canberra for its courage and leadership in standing up to the bully tactics and hopes the New Zealand government is watching closely.”

The Smokefree Coalition said the industry knew plain packaging would hit it hard, and that was why it was “pulling out all the stops”.

“We expect our leaders will show the same guts and backbone when those threats start over here,” said coalition executive director Dr Prudence Stone.

Cancer Society chief executive Dalton Kelly said cigarette companies could see the writing on the wall.

“Smoking is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Australia is leading the world by introducing plain packaging and I hope New Zealand is not far behind.”

Big Tobacco v Australia: Philip Morris jumps the gun on legal challenge

It is far from clear whether Philip Morris’ tactic against plain packaging will succeed. AAP

Smoking-1309155803

In the latest salvo in the fight over plain packaging for tobacco products, Philip Morris is launching legal action under Australia’s bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong.

The key aspect of Philip Morris’ claims against the Australian government is that the proposed plain packaging law results in unreasonable measures that impair the enjoyment of an investment.

Investment is broadly defined under treaty to include intellectual property.

Bilateral investment treaties seek to facilitate investment between two countries. They basically enhance business activities between the nations.

The treaties provide guarantees of non-discriminatory treatment between investors from the two countries; protect those investors from unreasonable measures in terms of their investment; and provide mechanisms for dispute resolution.

Disputes are a growth area in such treaties – which are themselves going through a boom period – as they allow investors to trigger dispute resolution mechanisms.

Investment disputes are normally heard by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which is supported by United Nations arbitration conventions.

So, the argument Philip Morris might seek to make is that the plain pack laws will unreasonably impair its ability to enjoy the intellectual property it has established with its design and properties in Australia.

But while there are mechanisms under that treaty to resolve disputes such as these, the legislation isn’t operative yet so I’m not sure the the company’s claim has any basis.

What’s more, the government says any legislation it passes will only come into effect on January 2012.

Technically, there’s no dispute until then, but Philip Morris could argue that the government has announced its intention to introduce the legislation, so it would be prudent for both parties to engage in a conversation now.

In other words, the claim is not consistent with provisions of the agreement but prudence would dictate that it would be advantageous for both sides to start to work out a solution to the impending issue.

And the government could seek to resolve the concerns that Philip Morris is raising.

One way forward for the government is to say “We’re going ahead with this and if you wish to sell your products here, you’ll have to comply with the proposed legislation”.

If the company wants to claim for its intellectual property, the government could offer a monetary settlement and this might be Philip Morris’ tactic in raising this issue and having it discussed in advance. It could be a pre-emptive move.

If there were a dispute, the agreement provides that there has to be a three-month cooling period between the time the dispute is raised and the formal commencement of proceedings.

This allows the parties to reach some kind of settlement before getting to arbitration so we’re a way off formal proceedings.

Commercially, if a settlement is reached between the government and Philip Morris, it would put an end to the matter. That is, if the company were to enter into an agreement with the government, that would affect its ability to bring future claims.

Another way to approach this from the government’s side is to phase the measure in as a way of reaching a mutually beneficial outcome.

The company can acquiesce that the government has the right to dictate how products are sold and the government would agree that the company has a right to sell and prepare for the legislative change.

The key issue then would concern the dominant commercial interest on the part of Philip Morris – whether they are concerned about the sale of their products or the intellectual property associated with the packaging of their product.

On the face of it, this move by the company is about creating a precedent for plain packaging and the knock-on effect it may have for other more lucrative markets.

If we look at intellectual property associated with a brand, clearly tobacco companies have in many instances around the world faced significant constraints on the way they can promote their brand.

Already in Australia they are prevented from running television advertisements, advertising during sporting events and they have to carry prominent warnings on their products.

This clearly diminishes tobacco companies’ ability to promote their products and the government can argue that the plain packaging initiative is consistent with previous measures.

In fact, this could end up being the what the arbitration panel decides on.

It is far from clear whether Philip Morris’ tactic against plain packaging will succeed. AAP

In the latest salvo in the fight over plain packaging for tobacco products, Philip Morris is launching legal action under Australia’s bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong.

The key aspect of Philip Morris’ claims against the Australian government is that the proposed plain packaging law results in unreasonable measures that impair the enjoyment of an investment.

Investment is broadly defined under treaty to include intellectual property.

Bilateral investment treaties seek to facilitate investment between two countries. They basically enhance business activities between the nations.

The treaties provide guarantees of non-discriminatory treatment between investors from the two countries; protect those investors from unreasonable measures in terms of their investment; and provide mechanisms for dispute resolution.

Disputes are a growth area in such treaties – which are themselves going through a boom period – as they allow investors to trigger dispute resolution mechanisms.

Investment disputes are normally heard by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which is supported by United Nations arbitration conventions.

So, the argument Philip Morris might seek to make is that the plain pack laws will unreasonably impair its ability to enjoy the intellectual property it has established with its design and properties in Australia.

But while there are mechanisms under that treaty to resolve disputes such as these, the legislation isn’t operative yet so I’m not sure the the company’s claim has any basis.

What’s more, the government says any legislation it passes will only come into effect on January 2012.

Technically, there’s no dispute until then, but Philip Morris could argue that the government has announced its intention to introduce the legislation, so it would be prudent for both parties to engage in a conversation now.

In other words, the claim is not consistent with provisions of the agreement but prudence would dictate that it would be advantageous for both sides to start to work out a solution to the impending issue.

And the government could seek to resolve the concerns that Philip Morris is raising.

One way forward for the government is to say “We’re going ahead with this and if you wish to sell your products here, you’ll have to comply with the proposed legislation”.

If the company wants to claim for its intellectual property, the government could offer a monetary settlement and this might be Philip Morris’ tactic in raising this issue and having it discussed in advance. It could be a pre-emptive move.

If there were a dispute, the agreement provides that there has to be a three-month cooling period between the time the dispute is raised and the formal commencement of proceedings.

This allows the parties to reach some kind of settlement before getting to arbitration so we’re a way off formal proceedings.

Commercially, if a settlement is reached between the government and Philip Morris, it would put an end to the matter. That is, if the company were to enter into an agreement with the government, that would affect its ability to bring future claims.

Another way to approach this from the government’s side is to phase the measure in as a way of reaching a mutually beneficial outcome.

The company can acquiesce that the government has the right to dictate how products are sold and the government would agree that the company has a right to sell and prepare for the legislative change.

The key issue then would concern the dominant commercial interest on the part of Philip Morris – whether they are concerned about the sale of their products or the intellectual property associated with the packaging of their product.

On the face of it, this move by the company is about creating a precedent for plain packaging and the knock-on effect it may have for other more lucrative markets.

If we look at intellectual property associated with a brand, clearly tobacco companies have in many instances around the world faced significant constraints on the way they can promote their brand.

Already in Australia they are prevented from running television advertisements, advertising during sporting events and they have to carry prominent warnings on their products.

This clearly diminishes tobacco companies’ ability to promote their products and the government can argue that the plain packaging initiative is consistent with previous measures.

In fact, this could end up being the what the arbitration panel decides on.

Dodgy data enlisted in the propaganda war against plain packaging of cigarettes

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2011/06/28/dodgy-data-enlisted-in-the-propaganda-war-against-plain-packaging-of-cigarettes/

This week British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) launched its latest salvo in its propaganda war against plain packs.

new website allows visitors to click on any federal electorate (“Find your electorate”).

Once inside a selected electorate we read the estimate of illegal tobacco sales, with tax foregone derived from data compiled by Deloitte in 2011.

When you estimate illegal sales, you have to base it on survey data of what smokers tell you.

BATA are thoughtful enough to link to the report itself and on page 20, we read that Deloitte sourced Roy Morgan data gathered for BATA and that at  3.1.2.1 “Key requirements of sample:  Adult participants who qualified for the survey satisfied the following criteria: Aged between 18-64 years.  Resided in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide.”

On page 39, we can see that just 949 smokers completed the survey in these cities about whether they ever used illicit tobacco.

So BATA have taken city data and applied it to every electorate around Australia.

Apparently, smuggled tobacco is as easy to buy in Oodnadatta as it is in Redfern, Toorak or Vaucluse. It’s just the same with all consumer goods, right?

Deloitte seemed prescient when it handed over the report to the tobacco industry. A caveat reads “ No one else, apart from British American Tobacco Australia Limited, Philip Morris Limited and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited are entitled to rely on this Report for any purpose.”

That would include .. .well … everyone else.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/files/2011/06/tobacco-600x167.jpg

• Simon Chapman is professor of public health at the University of Sydney

***

• Meanwhile, over at The ConversationDonald Rothwell, professor at the ANU College of Law, analyses the case that Philip Morris is launching against plain packaging under Australia’s bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong.  He doesn’t give the company much chance of success.

Antismoking campaign mounts after Jo Ramos’s death

http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/nation/13062-antismoking-campaign-mounts-after-jo-ramoss-death

28 June 2011

A DAY after Jo Ramos, daughter of former President Ramos, succumbed to lung cancer, antismoking advocates called on Health Secretary Enrique Ona to step up the campaign against smoking.

In a separate phone interview, both Dr. Maricar Limpin, Framework Convention Tobacco Control Alliance-Philippines (FCAP) executive director, and former Health secretary Esperanza Cabral said that due to Ramos’s death, there should be a call for a stronger effort to curb smoking-related illnesses in the country.

“We need a stronger and firmer DOH [Department of Health] that is ready to fulfill its mandate in protecting the right of Filipinos to health and our right to the highest standards of health, as stipulated in our Constitution as well as in the convention of human rights,” Limpin said.

Cabral emphasized the need for the passage of picture-based warning on cigarette packs pending in the House of Representatives.

“I also call on Secretary [Enrique] Ona to step up the campaign of the DOH against smoking,” Cabral stressed out.

Cabral said Jo Ramos’s death is only one of the 240 Filipino lives lost every day from tobacco-related diseases.

“We extend sincere condolences to the family of Jo Ramos. We appreciate very much the effort of President Fidel Ramos to fulfill his daughter’s dying wish to remind people that ‘smoking is bad for you,’” Cabral said.

“In an interview, FVR [President Ramos] relays that Jo’s advice to all is ‘smoking is bad for you,’” she reiterated.

Cabral hoped that with the death of Jo Ramos, government leaders will be pushed to take action to warn the public about the ill effects of tobacco and control its distribution, sale and use in the country.

However, the Cabral-issued DOH Administrative Order (AO) 2010-0013 is being questioned by tobacco firms before courts, saying it does not conform to the guidelines set by the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003.

In April Batanes Rep. Henedina Abad and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. had filed separate bills that are pushing for the increase of cigarette prices by as much as 83 percent.

Sen. Pia Cayetano has filed a bill that would bolster the attempt to get the pictures on cigarette packs. The bill will penalize tobacco companies for every day of violation. It ensures the long-term impact by periodically varying the images used on the packs.

The Philippines is a signatory to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that obliges parties to put effective health warnings on cigarette packs.

It is estimated that one Filipino dies from tobacco-related death every 10 seconds, making it an alarming public health crisis. Seven out of the 10 primary causes of death in the country—stroke, cancer, heart attacks, tuberculosis, chronic lower respiratory disease, pneumonia and diseases that occur around childbirth—are tobacco-related diseases.

“Studies show a great decline in tobacco use in Brazil, Canada, Singapore and Thailand, among others. The US also recently announced that they will also be implementing picture warnings. We should not wait any longer,” said Evita Ricafort of HealthJustice.

, a public health law NGO that supports both the AO and the bills.

According to World Lung Foundation, a smoker takes a look at a cigarette’s packaging an average of 15 times a day, making it “the most effective and practical way to warn a smoker of the grave hazards of smoking.”

“Despite clear evidence on the positive impact picture warnings contribute to public health, the tobacco industry attempts to stop these pictures from seeing the light of day by filing lawsuits in different trial courts. The more successful they are in their efforts, the more tobacco-related deaths are not being prevented,” Ricafort lamented.

Might isn’t right, Labor tells big tobacco

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/might-isnt-right-labor-tells-big-tobacco/story-e6frf7jx-1226082990152

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard believes the federal government is capable of winning a legal stoush with big tobacco over plain packaging of cigarettes because it’s on the right side of the argument.

Philip Morris has launched an action suggesting the commonwealth is effectively planning to steal the company’s brand in contravention of a bilateral investment treaty Australia signed with Hong Kong 20 years ago.

But Ms Gillard says Labor isn’t about to be intimidated.

“We’re going to deliver cigarette packages in that drab green with no logos,” she told ABC Radio on Monday.

“We’re very confident of our position.”

Philip Morris spokeswoman Anne Edwards is equally convinced the cigarette maker has “an extremely strong case”.

She says if plain packaging is introduced companies should be compensated.

“By attempting to take our company property (brand) … it’s a very, very clear violation of the investment treaty that Australia has with Hong Kong,” Ms Edwards told Fairfax Radio.

But legal experts say things aren’t that clear cut.

A lawyer who’s had more experience than most fighting cigarette companies in court, Peter Gordon, believes Philip Morris is actually on shaky ground.

“The suggestion that the commonwealth is trying to take away the property rights of tobacco companies is of course a farcical proposition,” he told AAP.

“No one’s suggesting they’re not allowed to own these trademarks, they’re just suggesting they’re not allowed to use them in a way which improperly promote cigarette use among kids.”

Mr Gordon, formerly of Slater and Gordon, worked on the marathon Rolah McCabe cancer case against British American Tobacco until he was sued by the company himself.

He says while big tobacco is normally successful against smaller claimants it doesn’t have such a good track record against larger litigants it can’t outspend.

Manufacturers have had to cough up billions of dollars when they’ve gone up against the US federal government, combined US states and even Australian retailers backed by a wealthy litigation funder.

“Every time that a sovereign nation or a sufficiently funded private litigant has taken them on over a good case they’ve won,” he said.

It’s a point Health Minister Nicola Roxon rammed home on Monday too.

“It may be that big tobacco are famous for taking on victims – we’ve seen that over the past decades,” she told reporters in Canberra.

“(But) this is a course of action which is in the public interest.

“We won’t be frightened off by threats of legal action.”

International law expert Don Anton thinks the commonwealth is right to argue plain packaging is about protecting peoples’ health – not stealing intellectual property.

“(It’s arguable that) public regulation for a public purpose is not direct or indirect expropriation and therefore is not prohibited by the investment treaty,” the Australian National University academic told ABC TV.

Fellow ANU expert Donald Rothwell says until Labor introduces its draft laws into parliament, which could occur as early as next week, it’s not even clear Philip Morris has a cause of action.

The company is yet to suffer any damage, Prof Rothwell told AAP.

“So I see this more as an attempt to fire a shot across the bows.”

China’s anti-smoking activists try a new argument: that it’s bad for the economy

By William Wan, Monday, June 27, 9:42 AM

YUXI, China — When China issued its first national ban on public smoking last month, health advocates cheered but didn’t hold their breath. Like many anti-smoking regulations in China, this one seemed hollow, and for good reason.

A month later, the ban has had little, if any, effect. Smoking remains rampant in spaces where it has been prohibited, such as restaurants, schools and hospitals.

The main reason so few take China’s campaign against cigarettes seriously: The very government promising to crack down on tobacco use is the owner and chief beneficiary of the $93 billion industry.

For decades, that simple fact has blessed the state-run monopoly with custom-designed loopholes and stalled anti-smoking legislation.

As a result, China is tobacco’s biggest stronghold, the world’s largest producer and consumer. According to World Health Organization estimates, more than half of the men in China smoke, compared with roughly 20 percent in the United States. And cigarettes contribute to four of the top five causes of death in China, with 1.2 million tobacco-related fatalities a year.

In many ways, China’s struggle over smoking embodies a key dilemma facing its government: balancing the state’s obsession with economic growth with the appearance of looking out for the public interest.

So far, the public interest has been on the losing end. While tobacco users are dying in increasing numbers, tobacco farmers say they are sometimes forced to grow the low-earning crop by local officials eager to protect their key source of tax revenue.

Now, after years of working in vain, anti-smoking activists say they must move their fight away from simplistic arguments over health and morality and into the arena that matters most in modern China: economics.

A company town

Perhaps nowhere does the economic argument against smoking face a greater challenge than in the small city of Yuxi in Yunnan province, home of the Hongta Group, one of China’s biggest cigarette companies.

Residents work at the sprawling Hongta cigarette factory. Visitors stay at the Hongta Hotel. The rich play at Hongta golf courses. The poor toil in tobacco fields in surrounding villages.

For decades, Yuxi and the regional government of Yunnan have depended on the economic engine of tobacco. Yunnan, a relatively undeveloped region with many poor counties, receives almost half its tax revenue from tobacco.

As a result, the very idea of an anti-smoking movement remains foreign — an effort funded almost completely by international grants and often considered unwelcome.

“They call us crazy sometimes,” said Li Xiaoliang, who heads one of the few anti-smoking nonprofit groups in Yunnan. “People tell us, ‘The rice you eat, the clothes you wear come from the tobacco fields. Opposing tobacco is like opposing our right to a life.’ ”

Tobacco executives and local government officials declined requests for interviews, but workers for Hongta confirmed privately that their company and others in Yunnan have worked with local officials for decades to counter anti-smoking efforts.

When Li and other health advocates got cigarette billboards banned from some cities in Yunnan, tobacco companies responded by sponsoring events that allowed them to plaster their logos around town to promote auto races, charities and even marathons.

When activists appealed to local media, the companies poured money into newspapers for pro-tobacco fluff pieces and sidestepped TV advertising laws by sponsoring soap operas.

But the most frustrating setbacks for health advocates, Li said, have been in their work with schools. It took her years, she said, to persuade a small number of schools to declare themselves tobacco-free. At the same time, however, the companies expanded their presence in other schools through teacher awards and student scholarships.

In the poorest regions, schools built by tobacco companies include the cigarette brand in their names and adorn their halls with corporate slogans.

“Despite all our work, I don’t know if the tobacco companies even take us seriously,” Li said. “We are just a small gnat in comparison.”

Powerful partners

The power of the tobacco lobby is only magnified at the national level, where the government and the industry are deeply entwined.

Working together, they have jealously protected their monopoly and have largely fended off powerful foreign companies salivating over the Chinese market.

The same top administrators work overlapping positions at the National Tobacco Corp. — which produces China’s cigarettes — and the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration, which is supposed to regulate the industry.

And the Tobacco Control Office, created to reduce smoking nationwide, reports not to the Ministry of Health but to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, which runs the tobacco industry.

As head of the Tobacco Control Office, Yang Gonghuan works in a dimly lighted Beijing building with a staff of two dozen.

An epidemiologist who studied at Harvard, Yang in the 1990s helped organize the government’s first attempt to gather mortality statistics. When she realized most of China’s top causes of death could be tied to smoking, she began pushing officials to tackle the problem.

Her influence these days stems from a World Health Organization treaty China signed a few years ago that specifies actions and deadlines aimed at reducing smoking.

Chinese leaders, however, have largely been able to skirt those requirements. In 2008, when tobacco companies were ordered to add warning labels covering 30 percent of cigarette packs, they created a mostly blank box with a vague warning in minuscule print. They filled leftover space with English text, incomprehensible to most in the country.

In 2009, when the treaty required an increase in the cigarette tax, the government and the industry worked together to switch many brands to lower tax categories, thereby negating the effect.

“In some cases, the cigarettes actually got cheaper instead,” Yang said.

For the past decade, Yang’s opponents within the government have trumped her efforts with a single, powerful argument: Tobacco is indispensable to China’s economy, and the economy is key to social stability — the one thing China’s leadership worries about most.

While the government has dismantled other state-owned enterprises, it has clung to its lucrative tobacco trade. Last year, China’s tobacco industry generated $93 billion in total revenue and contributed $77 billion in taxes, almost 7 percent of China’s total tax revenue. And the number of cigarettes it produces continues to grow, rising 40 percent during the past decade.

In response, health advocates in China are trying to craft economic arguments.

This year, Yang’s office teamed with some of China’s most prominent economists as well as international experts to produce an attention-grabbing study on the social cost of tobacco. Factoring in the cost of health-care and lost productivity from dying smokers, the report argued that the long-term expenses of tobacco outweigh its short-term gains.

“As long as they continue to believe there is profit there, we will never get the government to change,” Yang said.

Meanwhile, health advocates in Yunnan have begun making a similar pitch to local leaders and say they have seen glimmers of hope. This year, Zhao Yaqiao, an economics professor at Yunnan Agricultural University, launched a pilot project to find alternative industries, including vegetable farming and tourism.

“You can’t just tell people not to smoke, just like you can’t tell farmers to stop planting,” he said. “You need to show them a different way.”

One of Zhao’s first moves was to reach out to the tobacco companies, a crucial step, he said, because of their vast political and economic influence. Many in the anti-smoking movement questioned his motives, and tobacco executives avoided him for six months.

A surprising response

When he finally landed a meeting, what they said surprised him.

“In their hearts, they also believe that someday tobacco will die and that there is a need for transition,” he said. “They said they’ve seen what happened in the U.S., Japan, Singapore.”

One manager at Hongta, declining to speak on the record for fear of losing his job, said that his company and others have recently begun exploring alternatives, investing in hydroelectric projects, real estate and hotels. “But we were stopped by the government and told to keep our focus on tobacco,” he said.

Tobacco executives, however, see the writing on the wall, the Hongta manager said.

“The industry may not collapse within the next 10 or 20 years, but for the next generation here, it’s hard to say what their prospects are,” he said. “It doesn’t look promising.”

Researcher Wang Juan contributed to this report.

© The Washington Post Company

Printing, ink and packaging suppliers discuss ways to make packs more appealing

Brandy Brinson http://www.tobaccoreporter.com/home.php?id=119&cid=4&article_id=10817

Everyone in the industry is looking for the next latest and greatest innovations as the bar is raised higher and higher for cigarette packs. All the focus on advertising and marketing is now turned to the pack, as restrictions abound and the pack remains the one avenue of communication with the consumer. Today’s packs are certainly turning heads with glitz and glamour—flashy foils, fancy paperboard featuring unique curves, and etching and embossing that you just have to touch. And all the while, these eye-catching designs serve another purpose—thwarting counterfeiters.

Tobacco Reporter caught up with a few leading suppliers to discuss packaging trends.

Foil

“Packaging has evolved greatly over the past 40 years, moving from simple printed cartons to lacquered finished boxes to plastic shrink sleeves with foil imprints. In the 1960s, the trend was multicolor printing with lacquering and/or lamination,” says Jacquie Wells, spokesperson for foil supplier Kurz.

Hot stamping dates back to the late 1800s with the use of authentic gold foil “leaf,” and it wasn’t until the past 40 years or so that the commercial use of foil as a decorative enhancement became widespread. “Hot stamping didn’t get its legs until the mid 1980s. At that time, an advance in application equipment allowed for higher speeds, making hot foils more flexible. Hot foil also gave products more appeal and allowed designs to become very diverse.”

Hot foils are transferred using a combination of heat and pressure, providing a very unique advantage—gloss level. “Structural and relief stamping are not only eye-catching, they also possess tactile characteristics offering even further potential for product positioning,” says Wells.

One of the most noticeable changes in packaging today is the use of hot and cold foil to give products more “pop” and shelf appeal, she says. “Many brands not only use hot or cold foil on the exterior package, but also on the product itself to make the brand and product more memorable. Foil increases the product’s overall appeal and brand imagery, and it can create more purchase interest.” Growth of foil use is due in part to the effectiveness of true product differentiation, luxury presentation and brand security features through foil stamping and embossing techniques, she adds.

Cold foils are gaining popularity in the market because they are cost effective and can be applied more quickly than hot foils, as today’s machinery allows faster application speeds. These foils are applied with adhesive, are highly versatile and have excellent design qualities.

“Today, cold foil is coming of age, bringing packaging houses a quick, efficient, cost-effective means of decorating with foil. Over the coming year, it is anticipated that cold foil will gain more ground in the marketplace and we will continue to see a trend towards more ‘green’ packaging.”

As for product security, Kurz offers a proprietary technology called Trustseal, which combines a variety of security features for brand owners and consumers. Wells says, “Tamper-evident seals and beautifully designed, custom-tailored solutions minimize brand erosion and maximize product visibility.”

Embossing cylinders

Engraved embossing cylinders are used to decorate cigarette packaging by running in line with printing presses in a single pass. Thus, no additional processes or raw materials such as special inks or foils are required to enhance the package, explains Peter Spector, vice president of sales for Eastern Engraving.

“This is especially advantageous for point-of-purchase selling where no other form of advertising is permissible. Embossing cylinders can be housed in existing press rotary die stations or in stand-alone units. Embossing can be registered to print with tight tolerance, overall patterns and textures, or blind (non-registered). Ribs that produce the round corner effect to create elliptical-shaped packages can also be engraved on the embossing cylinders either alone or in conjunction with registered embossing.”

Embossing cylinders can be engraved by chemical etching (photo engraving) or CNC milling. Overall patterns or textures may be engraved by machine engraving using die and mill tooling. Eastern Engraving uses a wax jet digital imaging system as a means of more accurately “printing” the cylinder prior to etching. The cylinders themselves can be solid steel, segmented inserts or copper-covered bases.

Etched embossing cylinders.

Gerrit van der Veen, division manager for tobacco and member of the board of ATG-Systems, discussed embossing and mock-up service in the tobacco industry at a presentation at TABEXPO Interactive. ATG manufactures engraved and etched embossing cylinders.

He discussed a new service from ATG regarding the initial design of new packs. “The usual way of starting a redesign, a limited edition or a new brand is using the design agency. The mock-ups they create are made in offset. Sometimes even with flatbed embossing. After approval from the brand manager, the printers, together with the cylinder manufacturers and the ink companies, try to reproduce this mock-up. Often they find out that the first mock-up cannot be reproduced, because of various reasons. A lot of time is lost and the brand manager doesn‘t understand why it all starts over again,” says Van der Veen.

ATG is offering a new kind of service—producing a “realistic” mock-up, which can be reproduced later on the gravure printing machine. ATG can make “barrel proofing“ cylinders. “With this, we can make on the original material and with the original inks, a realistic sample. Because this has been made with gravure cylinders, this can be reproduced later for the production cylinders in the same way. We start with several options, and the brand manager chooses the best option,” says Van der Veen.

If the brand manager has approved one of the versions, ATG can do the embossing on the same samples. After the printing and the embossing, ATG makes the mock-up and the brand manager has a “realistic“ pack in his hands. This is a sample that can be reproduced later in production.

“We can also use this service to find out how an old design looks with new (“all-over”) embossings,” says Van der Veen. “In this way, we save a lot of time—and money—because marketing will get a sample made with the right tools—in gravure and with rotary embossing, instead of an offset proof with flatbed embossing.”

Gravure printing

Gravure printing has come a long way in recent years. “Looking back in time, only pure engraved or conventional etched cylinders were in place. About 20 years ago, with the invention of laser technique to harden the light-sensitive cover, a much better definition of the text element became possible. The latest steps in direct laser engraving widen the technical possibilities as well. But also the classical engraving became better by innovations like the extreme gravure,” says Ruediger Brinkmann of Gundlach Verpackung GmbH, a supplier of printing solutions for the tobacco industry.

“Nowadays we make use of all applicable cylinder manufacturing techniques—depending on the special nature of the print jobs, it can be a combination of different techniques. This offers the tobacco industry a wide range of high-quality text elements, four-color pictures and, especially in gravure, very good effects with metal inks and varnishes.”

Precision has increased over the years due to sophisticated data workflow. This is vital to meeting the tight print and converting tolerances of customers, says Brinkmann.

“Last but not least the price for gravure cylinders became more competitive—a very important development for gravure versus flexo.”

In the future, he says, “We expect a further technical development with direct laser cylinders in view of cost and quality in order to keep the gap to alternative printing methods.”

New Packaging

Oscar Bos, sales director for Gestel Printing Co. says today’s trends in packaging and printing are to “create and use more space for communication with the consumer to compensate for the loss of advertising possibilities for tobacco products; and to introduce limited-edition packs (LEPs), often using nonconventional materials to draw the consumer’s attention and to make the product more attractive.”

In line with these goals, Gestel Printing Company B.V. recently introduced a brand-new packaging concept—the Zmart Box. The company launched the pack at TABEXPO.

Interestingly, the pack finds its origin in the roots of the company. In the late 19th century, Gestel started as a supplier for the cigar industry, which was located mainly in the area around Eindhoven in the south of the Netherlands. The products that Gestel supplied started from cigar bands and cigar box labels but were later followed by the well-known shoulderboxes—the main type of cigar packaging nowadays. Over the years, Gestel broadened its market by adding some of the world’s largest cigarette manufacturers to its customer list, besides various other “luxury” markets such as the chocolate, liquor and cosmetics industries.

“Having produced shoulderboxes for such a long time already, we wanted to find a type of packaging that had the manufacturing features of a modern cigarette hinged lid but the looks of the more luxurious shoulderbox,” says Bos.

Although the shoulderbox looks great, it is more expensive than a hinged lid due to several reasons. For one, it is made up of four separate parts (bottom, lid, label and shoulder) instead of one; also, after printing it has to be assembled into a shoulderbox; and furthermore, it has higher freight costs due to the transport of boxes instead of flat-packs.

The Zmart Box is unique because it is a one-piece flat-pack, based on the same wrap-around concept as a hinged lid. However, once made up, it looks like a shoulderbox. This offers a unique opportunity to cigarette manufacturers as they can now produce high volumes of shoulderbox-like packs at ta speed and cost almost comparable to that of normal hinge-lid packs.

Compared with a conventional shoulderbox, the manufacturing costs are about 40 percent lower, and the assembling/filling speed is up to five times quicker. “For Gestel, this means we can expand our market for this type of packaging to not only cigar but also cigarette manufacturers, which obviously means larger volumes. This is not entirely unwelcome considering these volumes have been decreasing substantially over the last years due to more rigid government legislations,” says Bos.

To be able to offer a complete solution, Gestel has established a partnership with a machine manufacturer to develop a brand-new machine. Some of the features of the machine include an assembling/filling speed up to 300 boxes per minute and the possibility to vary shapes and sizes using Flex Units. Depending on the customer’s requirements, the machine can be installed in a production plant within seven or eight months.

Bos says, “Adding everything up, we are convinced that we have developed a unique concept for tobacco manufacturers and look forward to making it a success together with our valued customers.”

Packaging

Bloomberg – Philip Morris Claims Australia’s Plain Cigarette Package Plan is Illegal

Philip Morris International Inc. (PM), the world’s largest publicly traded tobacco company, said it has started legal action against
the Australian government over plans to allow the sale of cigarettes only in plain packages. The company filed a notice of claim
against the government saying the proposals violate terms of Australia’s Bilateral Investment Treaty with Hong Kong, Philip
Morris’ Asian unit said in an e-mailed statement today. A copy of the court document wasn’t immediately available. Australia,
which has already banned the public display of tobacco products in retail outlets, plans to outlaw logos on cigarette packs and
force them to be sold in plain dark olive packaging, carrying health warnings instead of company logos. Cigarette brand names
will appear on the packages in the same size and style of printing. The legislation, if passed by parliament, will come into force
on Jan. 1, 2012. “The forced removal of trademarks and other valuable intellectual property is a clear violation of the terms of
the bilateral investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong,” Anne Edwards, a spokeswoman for Philip Morris Asia, said in
the statement. “We believe we have a very strong legal case and will be seeking significant financial compensation for the
damage to our business.” The government raised tobacco taxes by 25 percent last year as it seeks to curb smoking, which is the
nation’s largest single preventable cause of death, according to Health Minister Nicola Roxon. “We don’t believe that taking
that action is in breach of any of our international obligations,” Roxon told Sky News today. “We believe that we are able, and
the Australian people I think would expect their government, to take action in the interests of public health.” To contact the
reporter on this story: Robert Fenner in Melbourne at rfenner@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this
story: Neil Denslow at ndenslow@bloomberg.net

Philip Morris International Inc. (PM), the world’s largest publicly traded tobacco company, said it has started legal action againstthe Australian government over plans to allow the sale of cigarettes only in plain packages. The company filed a notice of claimagainst the government saying the proposals violate terms of Australia’s Bilateral Investment Treaty with Hong Kong, PhilipMorris’ Asian unit said in an e-mailed statement today. A copy of the court document wasn’t immediately available. Australia,which has already banned the public display of tobacco products in retail outlets, plans to outlaw logos on cigarette packs andforce them to be sold in plain dark olive packaging, carrying health warnings instead of company logos. Cigarette brand nameswill appear on the packages in the same size and style of printing. The legislation, if passed by parliament, will come into forceon Jan. 1, 2012. “The forced removal of trademarks and other valuable intellectual property is a clear violation of the terms ofthe bilateral investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong,” Anne Edwards, a spokeswoman for Philip Morris Asia, said inthe statement. “We believe we have a very strong legal case and will be seeking significant financial compensation for thedamage to our business.” The government raised tobacco taxes by 25 percent last year as it seeks to curb smoking, which is thenation’s largest single preventable cause of death, according to Health Minister Nicola Roxon. “We don’t believe that takingthat action is in breach of any of our international obligations,” Roxon told Sky News today. “We believe that we are able, andthe Australian people I think would expect their government, to take action in the interests of public health.”

Download PDF : Combined(1)

Plain Packaging

Download PDF : Plain-Packs-Sydney-Institute