From Linda Bauld: the case for plain packaging (UK Smoking Cessation Conference address)

Here's Linda Bauld's spiel.

She sticks fairly closely to the slide show, reproduced below the audio clip.

I thought I would present it here as we are near the end of the consultation period on this (12 August).  To me (cynic that I am) it sounds as if she is saying the following:

1. There is no empirical evidence about plain packaging because it is not in place anywhere yet.
2. We have been asked by the government to compile evidence and we have done so using reports of varying quality that somehow combine to make a very strong case.

3. It is quite untrue that our academic report is biased. It is all peer reviewed. We chose all the studies and the government chose us  to do the work because of our monopoly of wisdom and experience in this particular area.

4. Branded packs are more attractive than plain ones and this suggests that people will be less inclined to choose plain packs even when they can't choose branded ones. Plain packs are associated with older, less attractive and less popular people in society and the young won't want to be associated with that kind of person (this is what it says in the research!)
5. Young people that our colleagues gave plain cigarettes to were too embarrassed to get them out when out with their smoking friends, and more likely to think about quitting. This is ample evidence that they will actually go on to quit when the law is enacted and their friends are all carrying plain packs around.
6. There is no evidence that the policy will result in further extension of illicit tobacco sales (forgot about point 1, where it says there is no evidence about any aspect of the policy, because it has not been implemented anywhere yet).

For more about peer reviewing see here. It does not prove worth. This whole area of research is led by policy requirements, and peer review is alleged here to be part of this process.

More on the blatantly one-sided plain packaging consultation

Over the last two days, even more reasons to feel this whole consultation arrangement falls far short of a transparent and all-inclusive consultation.

1. The study commissioned as an 'independent academic review' is not only authored entirely by tobacco control professionals, but as DP points out, it relies on a collection of studies that are not only specifically tobacco control studies and funded as such but nearly half of them are authored by the authors of the so-called independent review.

2. (h/tip Xopher, from his own consultation response)

Previous consultations have been criticised as quoted below :

 “The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer.”  

“…….. said the disclosures summed up Labour's "cavalier" approach to consulting the public.” 

…… said: "It will come as no surprise to us if the Department of Health has funded organisations that provide the responses to consultations that the Government is looking for.” 

"The public are understandably cynical about the way Labour consults the public - it's time we had a Government that treats the public and their views with the respect they deserve." 

Can we be assured that this consultation will be impartial and free of the above criticism? I hope so since these are the words of Andrew Lansley MP who in his current Government role has a full oversight of Health Department activity and as an elected Member of Parliament is duty bound to uphold democracy in this Country. 

What's the difference between being in Opposition and being in Government? Quite a lot, it would seem.

Of course Action and Smoking on Health (and now ASH Scotland) both know that there are reasons the public cannot be trusted with fully open consultations. Action on Smoking and Health recently published its tobacco company stooge list, which included the CBI, major trade unions and everything in between. Sheila Duffy today publishes an opinion piece in the Scotsman, explaining why Scottish ministers should fully implement Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Article 5.3 of the FCTC recognises the “irreconcilable conflict” between public health and tobacco industry interests and requires governments to engage with the industry only so far as is absolutely necessary to organise effective regulation. 

If Scottish ministers were fully to implement Article 5.3 that would mean agreeing to transparency in all contacts with the industry. 

It would involve a policy of disinvestment of public money from tobacco shares. It should require a special declaration of any tobacco interests from any individuals and organisations engaged in public health policy discussions.

In the real world where the rest of us live, the world is full of interests that can endanger health if left unchecked. It is not only bad products but corrupt practices that contribute to poor public health outcomes. For example from the US (just to illustrate) an executive from Monsanto has undue power in the FDA. This is of no concern to the Sheila Duffys of this world because they are still in the nursery where food is good for you and tobacco is bad for you.

Sheila also has a go at defending the current consultation process but does not begin to address the issues. One suspects that she does not really understand them.

Over the last month a joint UK and Scottish Government consultation on requiring tobacco to be sold in plain packaging has been met with industry-funded opposition, scaremongering stories and misleading information.

There is nothing misleading in what Dick Puddlecote, the Hands off our Packs Campaign, I or anyone has said in pointing out that the Department of Health wants to listen only to tobacco control and they attempt to make a virtue of this one-sidedness by invoking article 5.3 of the FCTC.

Stirling is proud to present ...

... The 'independent' academic review on plain packaging. The Department of Health has so described this document in this statement: last paragraph on the first page.

The Stirling Observer finds its local university at the centre of the plain packaging campaign, and is justifiably proud. It quotes Professor Linda Bauld:

Professor Bauld added: “This systematic review forms the basis for the UK wide consultation on whether plain packaging should be introduced. The studies we identified and describe in the review were remarkably consistent in their findings

(well, there's a surprise)

and clearly set out what effect plain packaging could have. 

“The public consultation will take place from April to July and will help the government to decide whether the UK will follow Australia’s lead, where plain packaging will be introduced by 2013. 

“I’d encourage people to have a look at the evidence set out in our review, make up their own minds about the issue and respond to the consultation.”

Thanks for that, Linda. (In case anyone wishes to take up this invitation, this is worth reading, from Dick Puddlecote.)

Equally proud is the adorable Richard Simpson MSP:

*S4M-02667 Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Scottish Labour Party): Plain Packaging of Tobacco Review of Evidence—That the Parliament congratulates the academics from the University of Stirling Management School, who have conducted a systematic review of plain tobacco packaging, which it believes has led to the UK Government’s consultation on whether tobacco should be sold in standardised, or plain, packaging; notes that the study team included Professor Gerard Hastings and Professor Linda Bauld, both of whom are members of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies; notes that the review of evidence focuses on whether cigarettes should be sold in plain packs to reduce the attractiveness of the brand packaging and making the health warnings clear; further notes that the study claims that, in over three dozen other studies, it was shown that plain packaging can help smokers in three ways, by increasing the prominence and effectiveness of health warnings, by making the pack, and thereby smoking, less appealing and by removing the confusion about the relative harm that pack design can cause, and calls on all those who have concerns about the substantial number of new smokers each year in Scotland, who it understands are predominately young people, to respond to this consultation.

(Richard Simpson MSP is to be remembered for denying there was any need for a watertight case that the display ban would work. No doubt he feels the same about plain packaging.)

The 'independent' academic review in question is 'independent' only insofar as it is not officially part of the Department of Health. At least four of its six authors and at least two of their four institutions are set up to fight tobacco use and are funded for that purpose: to 'discover' (ad nauseum) the harms of tobacco and recommend restrictions on its use. Hardly objective or even a study, this is an attempt to assemble a brief in support of what government plans to do. Calling it an independent academic review is disgraceful and dishonest, and sadly what we have come to expect from the government in relation to tobacco control.

Just wouldn't it have been nice to have included the views of Ukraine, the US Chamber of Commerce, TransAtlantic Business Dialogue and other US business organisations that have protested, the International Chamber of Commerce, Brand Republic or even British American Tobacco? Perhaps an 'independent' academic review could have ensured representation of these views in the report, and even academics from relevant disciplines for assistance in compiling it.

But the wisdom of the health lobby trumps all of them.