Plain packaging moves across the world

In Australia the case opens in court as the tobacco companies defend their intellectual property against the plain packaging laws. The Australian government is confident of victory, arguing that it will not gain directly by confiscating tobacco brand markings.

The Commonwealth argues that even if big tobacco could prove the government was acquiring their property rights the manufacturers still wouldn't win in court.   

That's because the purpose of the plain packaging legislation - namely to improve public health - is within the scope of the Commonwealth's legislative power under the constitution's commerce, trade and external affairs powers.

This sounds like a blank cheque book: claim health grounds and you have a legal basis for any action. Even if the result were certain to be as the government claim, would this over-ride the legitimate requirements of traders to be able to legally brand their goods?

The legal arguments are beyond me but this link shows that opposition to the plain packaging proposals is shared with many bodies such as the US Chamber of Commerce. The Express has also opposed the policy. This link from Brand Republic gives a number of views including one from its own industry – not heard enough:

"Just focusing on the connection between branding and smoking behaviour may be a distorted way of looking at the way of branding. 

"Branding on pack is about differentiating product and competition on the basis of quality, reputation and price but if all the packs look the same you move very quickly towards a generic commoditised market place and that is typified by price competition. 

"It means there is a loss of incentive for companies to invest in quality and reputations because they have no way to communicate that to consumers. While I’m sure the familiar brands will continue, if you were to launch a new product into the market it can only be a price fighting product and if that is a means of reducing prices to consumers then actually it may result in more people smoking rather than less because it becomes a very price sensitive market.

Here the government consultation on plain packaging has opened: coordinated by the Department of Health to cover all the legislative assemblies as well as England. (It's worth responding: the EC had to publish responses to its Consultation on revising the Tobacco Products 2001 Directive. The public didn't like its proposals and this showed up in the consultation responses. It also showed that the tobacco company was not alone in opposing an extension to tobacco control. The more embarrassment they get the better.)

Simon Clark says in his blog that Andrew Lansley promised an independent review* of the evidence on plain packaging. I haven't read this review yet, but since it is co-authored by a team including Gerard Hastings, Linda Bauld and Crawfood Moodie (refer to front page of the report for their affiliations), it cannot be described as independent. As Simon says, 'there is not a single marketing, communications or branding expert on the panel'. Perhaps they would have been considered vested interests?

*yes he really did! Jesus, they surpass themselves. 'The Department of Health has ... commissioned an independent academic review of the existing evidence on the effects of plain packaging'. Said independent review is authored by a team of ten people, affiliated with the University of Nottingham, the Cancer Research UK Centre for Tobacco Control Research at the Institute of Social Marketing at Stirling University, and the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies. I've said this before: Cancer Research includes in its funding conditions for tobacco-related research the provision that research 'support current UK policy priorities', including plain packaging. How the {censored} does he get off with calling this an independent academic review?

h/tip Simon Clark for the link

Stirling University research on plain packaging

Is this study what all the fuss was about? Dear oh dear.

'Nearly 50 young adult smokers used non branded cigarette packets in everyday situations for two weeks.' The smokers were less keen than those in a control group to hand out cigarettes or have the packets on show. The researchers didn't take into account that if plain packaging were everywhere, people would be less self conscious about using tobacco in public places – bearing in mind that there is nowhere comfortable to do it publicly anyway. Admittedly this is only a report of the study (available in full to subscribers of the British Medical Journal) but no attempt is made to explain whether the subjects' smoking behaviour changed in private.

The research is also reported in the Scotsman here. This report focuses on 950 children interviewed during the study. Again with the proviso that we are looking only at a report of the study, some findings are quite breathtaking – for example:

It claimed 27 per cent of the 950 people questioned were susceptible to taking up smoking in the future because they failed to express a definite desire never to smoke. 

The people conducting this study seem a little out of their depth. Many people drastically change their expectations and preferences quite drastically between their teens and adulthood, often to their own surprise.

Dr Crawford Moodie's assertion that 'the study confirms the lack of appeal of plain packs, with the enjoyment and consumption of cigarettes being reduced' can be described as wishful thinking, based on the fanciful idea that smokers enjoy smoking because of the attractive packaging. 

This is the current line-up on the BMJ's Tobacco Control periodical. In addition to Crawford Moodie's piece there is an editorial on plain packaging.