Standardised packaging - Revision history

Paul Herring at 11:30, 14 May 2018

2018-05-14T11:30:59Z

Paul Herring at 13:04, 6 July 2017

2017-07-06T13:04:22Z

Paul Herring: Paul Herring moved page Plain packaging to Standardised packaging: To reflect current nomenclature, and because they're actually anything but plain.

2017-07-06T12:56:49Z

Paul Herring moved page Plain packaging to Standardised packaging: To reflect current nomenclature, and because they're actually anything but plain.

Paul Herring: /* The European Journal of Public Health - Apr 2015 */

2015-04-14T20:09:30Z

The European Journal of Public Health - Apr 2015

Paul Herring at 20:03, 14 April 2015

2015-04-14T20:03:04Z

Paul Herring: /* Australian plain packaging doesn't result in a decrease in sales */

2015-03-16T18:13:26Z

Australian plain packaging doesn't result in a decrease in sales

Paul Herring: /* Australian plain packaging doesn't result in a decrease in sales */

2015-03-16T18:10:04Z

Australian plain packaging doesn't result in a decrease in sales

Paul Herring: /* Australian government may implement tax rise to coincide with introduction of plain packaging - 5 Sep 2012 */

2015-03-16T18:09:10Z

Australian government may implement tax rise to coincide with introduction of plain packaging - 5 Sep 2012

Paul Herring at 13:34, 17 June 2014

2014-06-17T13:34:42Z

Paul Herring at 21:33, 3 October 2012

2012-10-03T21:33:31Z

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 More recently [[Nichola Roxon|Ms Roxon]] has stated in August 2012:
 {{quote|"We've been very clear - we haven't made any estimates about the level of reduction that will flow from [[standardised packaging|plain packaging]]," she told Sky News on Sunday<ref>http://www.insideretail.com.au/IR/IRNews/Plain-packs-wont-hurt-5693.aspx</ref>}}
 == The European Journal of Public Health - Apr 2015 ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 14 April 2015
Line 47:		Line 47:
	{{quote2\|1=No significant association between design and marketing features of tobacco products and an early initiation of regular smoking was observed (OR = 1.04; 95%CI 0.83–1.31).}}<ref>[http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/packaging-doesnt-make-people-start.html Packaging doesn't make people start smoking - study] - Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog</ref> }}		{{quote2\|1=No significant association between design and marketing features of tobacco products and an early initiation of regular smoking was observed (OR = 1.04; 95%CI 0.83–1.31).}}<ref>[http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/packaging-doesnt-make-people-start.html Packaging doesn't make people start smoking - study] - Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog</ref> }}

		+	The research itself was

		+	{{quote\|...authored by researchers from [[Imperial College London]], [[Harvard School of Public Health]] and the [[University of Crete]], with one of them also affiliated to Centers for Disease Control ([[CDC]]) and Prevention’s [[Office on Smoking and Health]], and was published by [[Oxford University Press]] on behalf of the European Public Health Association ([[EPHA]])<ref>[http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/4442-reasons-why-plain-packaging-wont.html 4,442 Reasons Why Plain Packaging Won't Work] - Dick Puddlecote blog]]</ref>}}
		+
		+	So, clearly, since such strong evidence against both plain packaging and flavored tobacco was published by the tobacco control side of the fence, this was under-reported.
		+
		+	No doubt if 'Big Tobacco' had funded the research with the same answers it would have been denounced, but since it wasn't, it was brushed under the carpet.

	== Review of UK Government's 2012 consultation - Jan 2013 ==		== Review of UK Government's 2012 consultation - Jan 2013 ==

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 More recently [[Nichola Roxon|Ms Roxon]] has stated in August 2012:
 {{quote|"We've been very clear - we haven't made any estimates about the level of reduction that will flow from plain packaging," she told Sky News on Sunday<ref>http://www.insideretail.com.au/IR/IRNews/Plain-packs-wont-hurt-5693.aspx</ref>}}
 == Review of UK Government's 2012 consultation - Jan 2013 ==

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 === Australian plain packaging doesn't result in a decrease in sales ===
-[[file:Australia_plain_packaging.jpg|400px]]<ref>[http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/tobacco-sales-in-australia-plain-packaging Tobacco sales in Australia since plain packaging] - [[IEA]]</ref>
+{{quote|As the graph below shows, plain packaging does not seem to have led to an acceleration in the decline of tobacco sales. On the contrary, the first year in which plain packaging was in force was the first time since the 1990s that sales rose in three consecutive quarters.<ref name="au_graph">[http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/tobacco-sales-in-australia-plain-packaging Tobacco sales in Australia since plain packaging] - [[IEA]]</ref>}}
 == [[Attwood, Scott-Samuel, Stothart, Munafò (2012)]] - 3 Sep 2012 ==

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 === Australian plain packaging doesn't result in a decrease in sales ===
-[[file:Australia_plain_packaging.jpg]]<ref>[http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/tobacco-sales-in-australia-plain-packaging Tobacco sales in Australia since plain packaging] - [[IEA]]</ref>
+[[file:Australia_plain_packaging.jpg|400px]]<ref>[http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/tobacco-sales-in-australia-plain-packaging Tobacco sales in Australia since plain packaging] - [[IEA]]</ref>
 == [[Attwood, Scott-Samuel, Stothart, Munafò (2012)]] - 3 Sep 2012 ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:09, 16 March 2015
Line 51:		Line 51:

	To place the cost into perspective, in Feb 2007 a typical packet of 25 cigarettes cost AU$11.25<ref>[http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/13-2-tobacco-taxes-in-australia Tobacco taxes in Australia] - Tobacco in Australia</ref> of which $7.03 was tax (both excise and service) (62.5%)		To place the cost into perspective, in Feb 2007 a typical packet of 25 cigarettes cost AU$11.25<ref>[http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/13-2-tobacco-taxes-in-australia Tobacco taxes in Australia] - Tobacco in Australia</ref> of which $7.03 was tax (both excise and service) (62.5%)
		+
		+	=== Australian plain packaging doesn't result in a decrease in sales ===
		+	[[file:Australia_plain_packaging.jpg]]<ref>[http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/tobacco-sales-in-australia-plain-packaging Tobacco sales in Australia since plain packaging] - [[IEA]]</ref>

	== [[Attwood, Scott-Samuel, Stothart, Munafò (2012)]] - 3 Sep 2012 ==		== [[Attwood, Scott-Samuel, Stothart, Munafò (2012)]] - 3 Sep 2012 ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:34, 17 June 2014
Line 27:		Line 27:
	{{quote\|"We've been very clear - we haven't made any estimates about the level of reduction that will flow from plain packaging," she told Sky News on Sunday<ref>http://www.insideretail.com.au/IR/IRNews/Plain-packs-wont-hurt-5693.aspx</ref>}}		{{quote\|"We've been very clear - we haven't made any estimates about the level of reduction that will flow from plain packaging," she told Sky News on Sunday<ref>http://www.insideretail.com.au/IR/IRNews/Plain-packs-wont-hurt-5693.aspx</ref>}}

		+	== Review of UK Government's 2012 consultation - Jan 2013 ==
		+	A review<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/131241017/Selecting-the-Evidence Selecting the Evidence] - Rupert Darwall</ref> paid for by [[Phillip Morris International\|PMI]] concluded that the UK Government's 2012 consultation on 'standardised packaging' for tobacco was seriously flawed for four reasons:
		+	* The questions were skewed towards the conclusion that plain packaging would be adopted as presented without producing a clear baseline of what would happen should it be found that plain packaging should not be adopted, or proffering policymakers with a 'half-way' house between full adoption or doing nothing. Essentially, the following loaded question was offered: "Are you in favour of standardised packaging or do you want teens and young people to start smoking?"
		+	* Evidence proffered was questionable, and misleading inferences were drawn from said evidence. For example the presumption that there is a link between packaging and smoking. No relationship was actually demonstrated to exist, and certainly no evidence given.
		+	* The [[Department of Health\|DoH]] actually admitted that the consultation was prone to bias, yet made no attempt at correcting or mitigating it.
		+	* No attempt was made to examine the unintended consequences of applying a plain packaging policy, for example removing all visual differences between packets would likely result in the determining difference being price with a consequent result. Nor was the potential for increased illicit tobacco examined.

	== Lancet - next: alcohol and food - 25 Aug 2012 ==		== Lancet - next: alcohol and food - 25 Aug 2012 ==

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 [...]
-The excise increase may be timed to coincide with the introduction of mandatory plain-packaging for tobacco products on December 1.<ref>[http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14756661/tax-rise-will-cost-smokers-a-packet/ Tax rise will cost smokers a packet - Yahoo]</ref>}}
+The excise increase may be timed to coincide with the introduction of mandatory plain-packaging for tobacco products on December 1.<ref>[http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14756661/tax-rise-will-cost-smokers-a-packet/ Tax rise will cost smokers a packet] - Yahoo News</ref>}}
 Now it may be rather cynical to suggest that such a huge tax rise may result in fewer cigarettes that raise such taxes being bought and - given the timing - the tax rise may be forgotten, and the reason given for the decrease will be [[plain packaging]].
-To place the cost into perspective, in Feb 2007 a typical packet of 25 cigarettes cost AU$11.25<ref>[http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/13-2-tobacco-taxes-in-australia Tobacco taxes in Australia - tobaccoinaustralia.org.au]</ref> of which $7.03 was tax (both excise and service) (62.5%)
+To place the cost into perspective, in Feb 2007 a typical packet of 25 cigarettes cost AU$11.25<ref>[http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/13-2-tobacco-taxes-in-australia Tobacco taxes in Australia] - Tobacco in Australia</ref> of which $7.03 was tax (both excise and service) (62.5%)
 == [[Attwood, Scott-Samuel, Stothart, Munafò (2012)]] - 3 Sep 2012 ==
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 == Australian Court rules that [[Plain packaging]] doesn't infringe IP - 15 Aug 2012 ==
 In a case where Tobacco companies went to court to argue that plain packaging would infringe on the Intellectual Property, Chief [[Justice Robert]] decided that
-{{quote|... a majority of the High Court found the government's legislation did not involve an acquisition of big tobacco's property under the commonwealth constitution.<ref>http://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=783894</ref>}}
+{{quote|... a majority of the High Court found the government's legislation did not involve an acquisition of big tobacco's property under the commonwealth constitution.<ref>[http://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=783894 Big tobacco says plain packs are bad] - Sky News</ref>}}
 == UK [[Department of Health]] public consultation - petitions handed in before deadline Aug 2012 ==
-Over 235,000 signed a petition against plain packaging organised by [[Hands off our Packs]].<ref>http://www.handsoffourpacks.com/newsroom/over-235-000-sign-hoops-petition-against-plain-packaging/</ref>
+Over 235,000 signed a petition against plain packaging organised by [[Hands off our Packs]].<ref>[http://www.handsoffourpacks.com/newsroom/over-235-000-sign-hoops-petition-against-plain-packaging/ Over 235,000 petition against plain packaging] - Hands Off Our Packs!</ref>
-Over 75,000 signed a petition for plain packaging organised by [[CRUK]].<ref>http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressrelease/2012-08-08-more-than-75000-supporters-want-to-ban-tobacco-brand</ref>
+Over 75,000 signed a petition for plain packaging organised by [[CRUK]].<ref>[http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressrelease/2012-08-08-more-than-75000-supporters-want-to-ban-tobacco-brand More than 75,000 Cancer Research UK supporters want to ban tobacco branding] - [[CRUK]]</ref>
 == Roy Ramm, Former Commander of Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard (Jul 2012) ==
@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 [...]
-First, plain packaging will be easier to counterfeit than branded packs. Once you've forged one packet with the name of the product on it, you've forged them all. Secondly, if it is easier to fake the packet, then it will be encouragement for organised crime groups to produce more and more fake tobacco to contain within them.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roy-ramm/plain-cigarette-packaging-government-plans-for-plai_b_1637528.html</ref>}}
+First, plain packaging will be easier to counterfeit than branded packs. Once you've forged one packet with the name of the product on it, you've forged them all. Secondly, if it is easier to fake the packet, then it will be encouragement for organised crime groups to produce more and more fake tobacco to contain within them.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roy-ramm/plain-cigarette-packaging-government-plans-for-plai_b_1637528.html Government Plans for Plain Packaging Will Boost Illicit Trade] - Huffington Post</ref>}}
-== MPs Open Letter<ref name="SoS2012">http://www.scribd.com/doc/98642659/Open-Letter</ref> to Secratary of State for Health (Jul 2012) ==
+== MPs Open Letter<ref name="SoS2012">[http://www.scribd.com/doc/98642659/Open-Letter Open Letter] (to the Secretary of State for Health) - Scribd</ref> to Secratary of State for Health (Jul 2012) ==
 In July 2012, 50 cross-party Members of Parliament signed an open<ref name="SoS2012" /> letter to the Secratary of State for Health (Andrew Lansley) pointing out perceived flaws in Plain Packaging, mentioning
 {{Quote|There is no reliable evidence that plain packaging will have any public health benefit; no country in the world has yet to introduce it. However such a measure could have extremely negative consequences elsewhere. This proposal will be a smuggler's charter. Latest estimates from HM Revenue and Customs show that up to 16% of cigarettes and 50% of hand-rolling tobacco in the UK is smuggled [...] standardised packaging [could] make smuggling simpler and exacerbate [lost revenue to HMRC].}}
@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 [...]
-...plain packaging will create a bizarre situation - where branded cigarettes are the tobacco products of choice on the black market. If we hand the control of branded goods to criminal gangs, we could actually be aiding them in their illegal trade.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2163227/Plans-plain-packaging-cigarettes-charter-organised-crime-danger-children.html#ixzz1zYFTw5zS</ref>}}
+...plain packaging will create a bizarre situation - where branded cigarettes are the tobacco products of choice on the black market. If we hand the control of branded goods to criminal gangs, we could actually be aiding them in their illegal trade.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2163227/Plans-plain-packaging-cigarettes-charter-organised-crime-danger-children.html#ixzz1zYFTw5zS Plans for plain packaging of cigarettes are a charter for organised crime and a danger to our children] - Daily Mail</ref>}}
 == Roger Helmer MEP (May 2012) ==
@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 In the same vein, why should the government use our taxes (and, let’s be perfectly clear, smokers pay far more in tax than they cost the NHS, they are in reality net-contributors to the state) to hector, lecture, cajole or coerce millions of adults to induce them to act in a way that the Department of Health deems to be acceptable? The simple answer is that they shouldn’t.
-There is no majority consensus behind standardised packaging, despite what we were told by a recent YouGov poll. The poll in question made claims based on a highly leading question and the President of YouGov happens to be on the Board of Trustees of a taxpayer funded anti-smoking lobby organisation, ASH. And even if there was a consensus, government should exist to support individual rights rather than to pander to calls from vested interest groups.<ref>http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1250/plain_packaging_plain_nonsense</ref>}}
+There is no majority consensus behind standardised packaging, despite what we were told by a recent YouGov poll. The poll in question made claims based on a highly leading question and the President of YouGov happens to be on the Board of Trustees of a taxpayer funded anti-smoking lobby organisation, ASH. And even if there was a consensus, government should exist to support individual rights rather than to pander to calls from vested interest groups.<ref>[http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1250/plain_packaging_plain_nonsense Plain packaging? Plain nonsense] - The Commentator</ref>}}
 == Suzi Gage (May 2012) ==
@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
      {{quote|There are few industries to have come under such sustained attack as big tobacco.}}
-It's almost too ridiculous to know where to start. I may be arguing semantics here, but I would say it's not the tobacco industry under attack so much as the disease and death caused by smoking cigarettes.}}
+It's almost too ridiculous to know where to start. I may be arguing semantics here, but I would say it's not the tobacco industry under attack so much as the disease and death caused by smoking cigarettes.<ref name="gage">[http://www.scilogs.com/sifting_the_evidence/tobacco-control-plain-packaging-and-media-misinformation/ Tobacco Control, Plain Packaging, and Media Misinformation] - Sifting the Evidence blog on SciLogs [http://www.webcitation.org/6B9AmyEvx WebCite archive]</ref>}}
 Having spotted what she perceives to be a semantic argument, she then goes on to make a mistake of her own that begs a similar sort of semantic argument:
-{{quote|So on to the meat. One thing that immediately leaps out to me about this article is that nowhere does it state that tobacco KILLS PEOPLE. OK, we all know this, but it's fundamental as to why there is this legislation in the first place. It's not there as some 'Nanny state' agenda, it's put in place primarily because there is evidence that most (8 out of 10 according to a [http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@pol/documents/generalcontent/cr_086797.pdf cancer research document] on the subject) people start smoking before the age of 19.}}
+{{quote|So on to the meat. One thing that immediately leaps out to me about this article is that nowhere does it state that tobacco KILLS PEOPLE. OK, we all know this, but it's fundamental as to why there is this legislation in the first place. It's not there as some 'Nanny state' agenda, it's put in place primarily because there is evidence that most (8 out of 10 according to a [http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@pol/documents/generalcontent/cr_086797.pdf cancer research document] on the subject) people start smoking before the age of 19.<ref name="gage" />}}
 Whoops. That's not what it says at all.
-It says that 8 out of 10 ''smokers'' start before the age of 19, not 8 out of 10 ''people''. Even using [[CRUK]]'s own debatable figures, only 21% of the UK population smoked in 2010<ref>http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/lung-cancer-and-smoking-statistics</ref>, indicating around 17% of the population started before the age of 19, not the 80% of the population Ms. Gage suggests. Yes, it's a blog post, but as a 2nd year Epidemiology PhD student<ref>http://network.nature.com/profile/U02208991</ref>, one would hope for such egregious mistakes which get the numbers almost an order of magnitude wrong to not actually be present. Or at least corrected in a timely fashion - the mistake (published at the beginning of May) was still present over two months later.
+It says that 8 out of 10 ''smokers'' start before the age of 19, not 8 out of 10 ''people''. Even using [[CRUK]]'s own debatable figures, only 21% of the UK population smoked in 2010<ref>[http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/lung-cancer-and-smoking-statistics Smoking statistics] - [[CRUK]]</ref>, indicating around 17% of the population started before the age of 19, not the 80% of the population Ms. Gage suggests. Yes, it's a blog post, but as a 2nd year Epidemiology PhD student<ref>[http://network.nature.com/profile/U02208991 Suzi Gage's profile] - Nature Network</ref>, one would hope for such egregious mistakes which get the numbers almost an order of magnitude wrong to not actually be present. Or at least corrected in a timely fashion - the mistake (published at the beginning of May) was still present over two months later.
 ==[[Ford (2012)]]==
-A Cancer Research UK funded study of 48 Scottish 15-yr-olds which prompted stories of "Tobacco companies are designing cigarette packs to resemble bottles of perfume or with lids that flip open like a lighter to lure young people into smoking"<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/designer-packs-being-used-to-lure-new-generation-of-smokers-7679250.html</ref> but in fact shows that teenagers are remarkably unaware of current packaging, and thus plain packaging will serve no useful purpose in reducing the likelihood of teenagers taking up smoking.
+A Cancer Research UK funded study of 48 Scottish 15-yr-olds which prompted stories of "Tobacco companies are designing cigarette packs to resemble bottles of perfume or with lids that flip open like a lighter to lure young people into smoking"<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/designer-packs-being-used-to-lure-new-generation-of-smokers-7679250.html Designer packs being used to lure new generation of smokers] - The Independant</ref> but in fact shows that teenagers are remarkably unaware of current packaging, and thus plain packaging will serve no useful purpose in reducing the likelihood of teenagers taking up smoking.