Scotland slips behind in the race to control tobacco (says ASH, Australia)

I almost feel sorry for Michael Matheson, but not quite. The story tells how a visiting speaker to Edinburgh University from ASH Australia this week will rebuke the Scottish Government for falling behind in the race to tobacco control. She perhaps does not realise that the Scottish Government does not have legislative competence to bring in plain packaging, which is reserved to Westminster. She accuses ministers of being afraid to stand up to tobacco companies, whose lawsuits have delayed the implementation of tobacco display and vending machine legislation. Matheson expostulates (reasonably enough) that he can't stop the tobacco companies challenging their legislation in court.

Another accusation bears a second look:

“Almost one in four people in Scotland smoke. The cost to Scotland in terms of lives lost, NHS bills, healthcare and other related costs is staggering,” [Anne Jones] said.

 One in four seems to be used quite frequently:

• One in four babies is born to a mother that smokes.
• One in four adults in Wales smokes.
• One in four smokers who started as teenagers die in middle age as a result of their habit.
• Smoking accounts for one in four cancer deaths.
• In 2004, the most recent year for which we have data, it was estimated that almost 13,500 deaths - nearly one in four of all deaths in Scotland - were attributed to smoking.

Best of all is this:

• Within the UK, historically, smoking rates have been higher in Scotland than England and Wales, but in 2004, the prevalence was similar in all three countries, at about one in four adults. 

It would show quite clearly that the impact of tobacco control policies in Scotland has barely changed the picture in smoking prevalence in Scotland over the last few years – if there were evidence that the smoking rate was based on anything more reliable than a figure plucked out of the air.

Matheson should not be distressed by this hurtful display of one-upmanship from the Australian branch of ASH. Tobacco control laws are nothing to be proud of, especially when characterised by absurd races to be ahead of other countries.

More scribblings from the ASH Scotland CEO

Sheila is keeping well busy these days, and in the pages of the Caledonian Mercury continues her crusade against the tobacco companies. Scotland is pictured as the heroic small country fighting against the evil tobacco that causes most of the country's premature deaths. She champions the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, congratulating the Scottish government for distancing itself from the tobacco industry (much like its sister organisation has done, characterising everyone up to seven degrees of separation from tobacco companies as tobacco-smeared).

Tomorrow, she informs us, is the next court appearance for tobacco companies fighting the vending machine ban. Lies and trickery characterise these tobacco manufacturing demons who will not go gently into extinction when threatened by wee Eck and the mighty tobacco control arm of the Scottish government.

Enough. 'The tobacco industry is a public pariah,' she tells us, quoting Yougov. Has anyone done a survey about what percentage of the population believes tobacco control?

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

Defend traditional medicines and prevent pharmaceutical monopoly on remedies.

Late in the day (this directive comes into force on 30 April), another dimension of the Freedom to Choose is under threat, but there is still time to remonstrate:



This video tells us that it is already illegal in Canada to grow aromatic herbs in your garden (Bill C-51). It speaks of the loss of thousands of remedies.

It tells us that pharmaceutical companies are under the spotlight because of a number of drugs scandals (among which we can include Champix). This directive will give such companies a monopoly and render illegal across Europe thousands of remedies collected over thousands of years from countries all over the world.

The Alliance for Natural Health has raised funds to bring action to court, to convict the European Union of abuse of authority. This initiative needs evidence of support from the public.

Sign against THMPD (Traditional Herbal Medicines Products Directive) (Directive 2004/24/EC) here.