Difference between revisions of "Standardised packaging"

From Harridanic
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  
Plain packaging is intended, according the the anti-smoking proponents, to reduce the number of people (some claims state 'children,' instead of people) taking up smoking because it will "make them less attractive."
+
[[Standardised packaging|Standardised, or 'plain', packaging]] is intended, according the the anti-smoking proponents, to reduce the number of people (some claims state '[[Grandad's Law|children]],' instead of people) taking up smoking because it will "make them less attractive."
  
Others have pointed out that plain packaging lowers the existing barriers to counterfeiting by allowing the counterfeiters to not bother too hard with one aspect of making fake cigarrettes.
+
Others have pointed out that [[standardised packaging]] lowers the existing barriers to counterfeiting by allowing the counterfeiters to not bother too hard with one aspect of making fake cigarettes.
  
==J Padilla & N Watson (2008)==
+
Mexico has recently (Jul 2012) made a request of the Australian government for evidence of the efficacy of [[standardised packaging]] [[media:Mexico plain packaging.pdf|[PDF]]], in particular, back in May 2011:
 +
{{quote|2. Provide the scientific information available in which Australia determined that [[standardised packaging|plain packaging]] influences
 +
consumer behavior, which will contribute to reduce smoking rates and explain the justification of the technical
 +
regulations in terms of the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of article 2 of the TBT Agreement.
 +
<ref>[[file:Mexico plain packaging.pdf]]</ref>}}
  
''[[Media:LECG_Literature_Review_on_generic_packaging.pdf|A Critical Review Of The Literature On Generic Packaging For Cigarettes]]'', commissioned for Phillip Morris International (PMI), by The Law and Economics Consulting Group(LECG) to review:
+
However Australia's Federal Health Minister [[Nicola Roxon]] has explicitly stated[[media:Roxon press conference may 2011.pdf|[PDF]]] that:
 +
{{quote|'''Journalist''': Minister, some members of the Opposition say they are keen to
 +
reduce the incidence of smoking, but they say you have no proof that [[Plain packaging|this]] will
 +
actually do it.
  
: from a technical perspective, ten studies based on original empirical research on the issue of generic packaging of cigarettes. The selection of papers was based on a thorough review of documents discussing generic packaging as a tobacco control measure carried out by Shook Hardy & Bacon, a law firm commissioned by PMI.
+
'''[[Nicola Roxon]]''': Well, this is a world first. The sort of proof they're looking for
All of the surveys reviewed purported, at least in part, to view the impact of plain packaging would have on teenager's inclination to take up smoking.
+
doesn't exist when this hasn't been introduced around the world. We do have
 +
research that tests the interest in particular measures, tests whether or not you
 +
can make a packet less attractive, whether it makes a person less likely to buy a
 +
product. We can't look around the world to see these successes because it
 +
hasn't been introduced around the world. <ref>[[file:Roxon press conference may 2011.pdf]]</ref>}}
  
In considering whether the conclusions of the studies, in general, were accurate, it was stated that
+
As pointed out elsewhere, [[:category:Research|querying people]] on what they think they might do, isn't measuring what they will actually do.
  
: From our review of the studies, we conclude that they do not provide a reliable answer on the existence of a causal link between branded cigarette packaging and youth initiation to smoking. The reason is that they have limitations both in terms of the data analysis and data collection methods.5 These limitations are so fundamental that conclusions derived on the relationship between cigarette packaging and youth smoking are likely to be misleading.[Page 9]
+
More recently [[Nichola Roxon|Ms Roxon]] has stated in August 2012:
==M Goldberg, et al. (1995)==
+
{{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>}}
''[[Media:Canada_Expert_Panel_Report_-_When_Packages_Can't_Speak_Mar_95_-_excerpt.pdf|When Packages Can't Speak: Possible Impacts of Plain and Generic Packaging of Tobacco Products]]'' was a 1995 report based on a series of surveys, for Health Canada, of teenagers, over 5 different studies, to examine the potential effect plain packaging might have on
 
  
*the uptake of smoking to begin with,
+
== Plain Packaging fails in its first year in the UK - May 2018 ==
 +
 
 +
{{quote|The Smoking Toolkit Study has found that on a three month rolling average, from December 2017 to March 2018, smoking rates in England were higher than for the same time last year before plain packaging was fully introduced.<ref>[http://the-tma.org.uk/2018/05/14/plain-packaging-failing-one-year-after-full-introduction/ Plain packaging failing one year after full introduction] - Tobacco Manufacturers' Association</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{quote2|In case you are disinclined to believe the tobacco industry's trade association, you can see the source data [http://www.smokinginengland.info/sts-documents/ here]. It does indeed show smoking rates falling steadily until early 2017. Thereafter they stop falling and start rising.
 +
 
 +
This is not quite what we were led to expect, is it? By the end of the first quarter of 2017, plain packaging was ubiquitous if not quite universal. By May 20th, every pack sold had to be 'plain' by law. Moreover, May 20th 2017 was also the date that the EU Tobacco Products Directive came into full force.<ref>[https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/plain-packaging-failing-in-uk.html Plain packaging failing in the UK ] - Velvet Glove, Iron Fist</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
== The European Journal of Public Health - Apr 2015 ==
 +
A study entitled [http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/03/30/eurpub.ckv068 The association between peer, parental influence and tobacco product features and earlier age of onset of regular smoking among adults in 27 European countries] found that when smokers were given up to 3 of 7 factors to chose from which encouraged them to start smoking, namely:
 +
 
 +
* your friends smoked (peer influence)
 +
* your parents smoked (parental influence)
 +
* you liked the packaging of the cigarettes (or other tobacco products)
 +
* you liked the taste or smell of tobacco
 +
* you liked menthol cigarettes
 +
* you liked cigarettes with a specific sweet, fruity or spicy flavour
 +
* cigarettes were affordable
 +
 
 +
so few respondants chose anything after the first two items that..
 +
 
 +
{{quote|
 +
{{quote2|All other responses were grouped together as ‘tobacco product features’, as the numbers of respondents who indicated each one as an influence were small}}
 +
 
 +
Small, indeed. In fact...
 +
 
 +
{{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 [[standardised packaging|Plain Packaging]] Won't Work] - Dick Puddlecote blog]]</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
So, clearly, since such strong evidence against both [[standardised 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 ==
 +
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 [[standardised packaging]] would be adopted as presented without producing a clear baseline of what would happen should it be found that [[standardised 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 [[standardised 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 ==
 +
{{quote|Like many other milestone tobacco-control legislations such as pictorial warnings on tobacco packets, first adopted by Canada in 2001, and workplace smoking bans, first introduced in Ireland in 2004, Australia's lead in [[standardised packaging|plain packaging]] will inevitably be followed by many other countries. Indeed, the UK, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, India, and South Africa are already considering taking such measures. Furthermore, the valuable lessons learnt in the fight against tobacco can be taken on board '''in countering the rampant marketing of alcohol and fast food.'''<ref>[http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961388-9/fulltext Australia's plain tobacco packaging] - The Lancet</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
Belies the protestations against the slippery slope argument used in [[the tobacco template]].
 +
 
 +
== Australian government may implement tax rise to coincide with introduction of [[standardised packaging]] - 5 Sep 2012 ==
 +
{{quote|The price of cigarettes would rise to $20 a pack under a Gillard Government proposal that would reap an extra $1.25 billion a year in taxes.
 +
 
 +
The West Australian understands the Government is considering a 25 per cent rise in tobacco excise that would raise $5 billion over four years.
 +
 
 +
[...]
 +
 
 +
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 [[standardised 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] - Tobacco in Australia</ref> of which $7.03 was tax (both excise and service) (62.5%)
 +
 
 +
=== Australian [[standardised packaging]] doesn't result in a decrease in sales ===
 +
{{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>}}
 +
[[file:Australia_plain_packaging.jpg|400px]]<ref name="au_graph" />
 +
 
 +
== [[Attwood, Scott-Samuel, Stothart, Munafò (2012)]] - 3 Sep 2012 ==
 +
In a study that finds it takes longer to drink a poncy French lager if you put it in a straight glass than it would if it was either lager or a soft drink in a fluted glass, they discuss the current state of affairs in the UK with regard to the variety of glasses available in pubs in which drinks may be served:
 +
{{quote|There may be other potentially modifiable factors which may influence alcohol consumption and drinking rate. These might include marketing signals (i.e., branding), and vehicles for these signals such as the glasses from which beverages are consumed. '''Legislation to control or limit these signals may therefore influence drinking behaviour. A parallel can be drawn with the tobacco control literature, where plain packaging has been shown to increase visual attention towards health warnings compared with branded packaging in non-smokers and light smokers'''<ref name="plos">[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0043007 Glass Shape Influences Consumption Rate for Alcoholic Beverages] - PLoS ONE</ref> }}
 +
 
 +
== Australian Court rules that [[standardised packaging]] doesn't infringe IP - 15 Aug 2012 ==
 +
In a case where Tobacco companies went to court to argue that [[standardised 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 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 [[standardised 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 [[standardised 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) ==
 +
{{Quote|I've had the privilege of commanding the Scotland Yard's Serious and Organised Crime branch and saw clearly how illicit trade in cigarettes and tobacco goes beyond what some might term mere 'petty criminality'. My former colleagues in Northern Ireland and other international law enforcement agencies identified the proceeds of smuggling as an important source of terrorist funding.
 +
 
 +
[...]
 +
 
 +
It would be disastrous if the government, by introducing plain-packaging legislation, removes the simplest mechanism for the ordinary consumer to tell whether their cigarettes are counterfeit or not.
 +
 
 +
[...]
 +
 
 +
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 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].}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{Quote|... this policy threatens more than 5,500 jobs directly employed by the UK tobacco sector and over 65,000 valued jobs in the associated supply chain.}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{Quote|... we believe products must be afforded certain basic commercial freedoms. The forcible removal of branding would infringe fundamental legal rights, severely damage principles around intellectual property and set a dangerous precedent for the future of commercial free speech. Indeed, if the [[Department of Health]] were to introduce standardised packaging for tobacco products, would it [[The Tobacco Template|also do the same for alcohol, fast food, chocolate and all other products deemed unhealthy for us]]?}}
 +
 
 +
== Peter Sheridan, ex-Assistant Chief Constable (Jun 2012) ==
 +
{{quote|The fact is, banning cigarette logos might actually make things worse. Plain packets could be a smugglers' charter. I’ve spent most of my working life as a senior police officer in Northern Ireland, where organised crime gangs and terrorist organisations have turned smuggling knock-off fags, jewellery and clothing into a multi-million pound black market business, alongside their prostitution rings and drug running operations.
 +
 
 +
[...]
 +
 
 +
...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) ==
 +
{{quote|Like a disturbing number of other announcements from the government in recent times, [the [[standardised packaging]] consultation by the UK government] is worrying from a personal liberty perspective.
  
*the impact on the recognition of, and the ability to remember, the warnings on packaging,
+
There is no question that smoking is a bad for your health. I would recommend that anyone who does smoke stops. However, this doesn’t mean I believe it is justifiable that the state should intervene to remove the intellectual property of a company selling a legal product in a misguided attempt to stigmatise a legal activity.
*the probability of stopping smoking
 
For the Direct Questioning surveys, Padilla and Watson(2008) summarised that
 
*Teenagers have mixed views on what they believe to be the impact of generic [plain] packaging.
 
*Results suggest that the effects of generic [plain] packaging on smoking would be marginal.
 
In the Visual Image survey that
 
*Generic packaging increased the recall rate of only one of three health warnings. The authors suggest that the exposure time was too short and that these results cannot be extrapolated to a more natural long term-setting.
 
And in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoint_analysis_%28marketing%29 Conjoint] survey that
 
*Packaging is generally as important as brand influence and peer influences (except for teenage non-smokers).
 
*Results suggest that plain and generic packaging will, to some “unknown degree, encourage non-smokers not to start smoking and smokers to stop smoking”
 
  
===National Survey===
+
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.
The purpose of the National Survey was to assess the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs held by teenagers (14-17 years) regarding smoking, brands, brand images, generic packaging and perceived impact of such packaging on teenagers. From an initial pool of 6,213 teenagers, 1,200 were eventually questioned from 14 Canadian cities. Those not eventually questioned dropped out because they didn't fit the age criteria, they were overt anti-smokers, or they simply refused to answer the questionairre.
 
  
''Padilla & Watson(2008)'' concluded that
+
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>}}
  
: The objective of the survey was simply to provide descriptive statistics on smoking beliefs, patterns and behaviours of teens in Canada. No attempt was made to establish a causal relationship between cigarette packaging and youth smoking.[Page 40]
+
== Suzi Gage (May 2012) ==
===Word Image Survey===
+
Even second year students, trying to work their way round the intricacies of anti-smoking propaganda still slip up:
The purpose of this survey was to determine what, if any, differences were perceived between branded packets, plain packets or packets with a "lungs" symbol. The cohort for this study seems to have been the same cohort as the National Survey, since 1,200 took part, and they answered the same screening questions.
+
{{quote|Yesterday an article in the Daily Mail was brought to my attention by Ben Goldacre, and Transform Drug Policy Foundation. There have been a few articles along a similar line to this one, questioning tobacco control research and policy. This one seemed particularly one-sided, so it's made me decide to go through the arguments, and discuss.
 +
The very first sentence of this article riled me, I have to say:
  
''Padilla & Watson(2008)'' concluded that
+
    {{quote|There are few industries to have come under such sustained attack as big tobacco.}}
  
: The results of this survey cannot be used to inform a policy decision regarding implementation of generic packaging. The likely effects of generic packaging can only be inferred from a comparison of the situation before and after the measure.[Page 42]
+
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>}}
===Visual Image Survey===
 
Pictures of 6 (types of) people were shown with different package types (3 brands, and pack types of branded, plain or plain+"lungs",)  in the lower right hand corner. Participants were then asked to agree/disagree on a 5 point scale with the statement  “Consider this (picture). Is (brand name) in this package right or wrong for this (woman/man)”. The brands selected were from a previous survey for which teenagers had the greatest convergant images.
 
  
''Padilla & Watson(2008)'' again:
+
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:
  
: By selecting only those brands that were more strongly associated with a certain person-type in the national survey, the results of this analysis may have overestimated the actual link between brands and perceived images.[Page 43]
+
{{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" />}}
===Recall and Recognition Survey===
 
This survey was of 400 Vancouver teenage smokers, to assess what differences plain/branded packs had on how much attention was paid to both the brand, and any warning messages present on the packs.
 
  
3 images of a table with a packet of cigarrettes, different brand each time, (with the pack either always branded or always plain), a magazine, can of pop and a bottle of headache pills. Images were shown for 4 seconds, and the respondants asked to list what they could see, the brand of cigarettes, and the warning on the packet.
+
Whoops. That's not what it says at all.  
  
The respondants were then shown all three packs with the warnings hidden, and asked to name which warning went on which pack.
+
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.
  
''Padilla & Watson(2008)'':
+
==[[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 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 [[standardised packaging]] will serve no useful purpose in reducing the likelihood of teenagers taking up smoking.
  
: The results of the study do not indicate that health warnings are better recalled when displayed on generic packages.
 
===[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoint_analysis_%28marketing%29 Conjoint] survey===
 
Respondants, which was the same cohort that participated in the Recall and Recognition survey above, were asked to choose between alternatives that differed in
 
*package type,
 
  
*brand,
+
==[[Borland, Savvas (2012)]]==
 +
An internet survey of only 160 young Australian smokers, for [[Tobacco Control (BMJ)|Tobacco Control]], were shown different formats of cigarettes differing by shape, patterning of the filter end, and branding concludes, that the format of the cigarettes themselves should be standardised as 'plain' because of the participants' perceptions that branded cigarettes with cork-patterned filters are higher in quality and stronger in taste
  
*price, and
+
==[[London Economics (2012)]]==
 +
The results of surveying 3,000 people on the effects of the removal of various 'product signals' (such as the branding, or other differentiators between brands) on various products (i.e. not just tobacco) suggest that [[standardised packaging]] would result in customers buying cheaper brands for lack of any other signals to select brands on. This could result in the average price of cigarettes dropping, and tobacco companies further reducing their prices to maintain market share. Furthermore:
  
*peer influence (friends smoke/do not smoke).
+
{{quote|"If greater price competition were to occur (and given the importance of price signals in the marketplace), there may be a possible increase in the level of consumption, especially amongst those individuals with fewer financial resources. Other factors held constant, the removal of all packaging imagery and possible subsequent price falls may also encourage younger people to take up smoking in the first instance."}}
''Goldberg et al (1995)'' themselves concluded the extent of the influence of generic packaging on smoking decisions:
 
  
: cannot be validly determined by research that is dependent on asking questions about what they think or what they might do if all cigarettes sold in the same generic packages.[Page 129]
+
==Royal Holloway, University of London project (2012)==
 +
While nothing as grand as a 'study' with a published paper such as the [[Munafò, Roberts, Bauld & Leonards (2011)|University of Bristol study]] appears to pretend to be, Tim Holmes has been supervising a study by his 3rd year psychology students[http://www.acuity-intelligence.com/?p=951]. In his own words:
  
==2008 UK Department of Health Consultation==
+
{{quote | We invited 59 non-smokers, regular smokers, social smokers (the ones who maybe smoke just on a Friday evening after a couple of drinks) and ex-smokers (who have given up for at least 6 months) to look at examples of 4 different package designs including regular branding, 2 types of picture warning labels and plain packaging. We tracked the participants’ eye-movements using a Tobii X120 eye-tracker, and showed each design with 4 different warning messages for 10 seconds each. We also asked participants to evaluate the risks associated with smoking before and after viewing the 16 packages. Unsurprisingly non-smokers tended to perceive a greater risk from smoking than the other 3 groups and disappointingly there was no change in risk perception as a result of viewing the stimuli. [[File:Tim_holmes_branded_plain.jpg|thumb|Tim Holmes, Branded vs plain]]
In 2008 the UK DoH commissioned a consultation with the results published in a report titled Consultation on The Future of Tobacco Control[http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_085651.pdf]. In it, it reported (with emphasis added):
 
  
: Research shows that this <u>'''may'''</u> reduce the attractiveness of cigarettes and further ‘denormalise’ the use of tobacco products. Studies show that plain packaging reduces the brand appeal of tobacco products, especially among youth, with nearly half of all teenagers <u>'''believing'''</u> that plain packaging would result in fewer teenagers starting smoking.[Page 7]
+
To be honest, our initial hypotheses all related to the picture messages and in the best research tradition returned non-significant results! However, we were surprised to observe two interesting results: the non-smokers looked at the warning messages much less than the other participants, and there was no difference between plain and branded package designs in the amount of time spent looking at the warning message. Now, it’s great that the right people are looking more at the warning message, but if this doesn’t result in an increased risk perception then surely the messages aren’t doing their job! Moreover, if removing the brand identity doesn’t change the way people look at the packets then maybe plain packaging, which will be costly to implement, isn’t the best of ideas.}}
  
However, later on it goes on to say
 
  
3.65 The Department of Health is not aware of any precedent of legislation in any jurisdiction requiring plain packaging of tobacco products.[Page 40]
+
==[[Munafò, Roberts, Bauld & Leonards (2011)]]==
 +
A study, by the University of Bristol, on of the eye movements of 43 (either largely or solely) university-age students when presented with images of both branded and plain packs.
  
So there is no research in to what effects, if any, plain packaging elsewhere may have.
+
Problems with the study include disparity in the size of packs used between branded and [[standardised packaging|standardised packs]], and the small number of participants (less than 25 in each of the three cohorts) with a total male/female ratio of 2/1 and what is presumed to be a narrow age range (average age was 23/24.)
==The 'University of Bristol' Study==
 
One citation for this claim is the study entitled [http://marcus-munafo.psy.bris.ac.uk/Publications/2011%20Addiction%20b.pdf Plain packaging increases visual attention to health warnings on cigarette packs in non-smokers and weekly smokers but not daily smokers] by Marcus R. Munafò, Nicole Roberts, Linda Bauld & Ute Leonards. The title of the study pretty much sums up the findings of the study which basically involved studying the (dominant) eye movements of 15 non-smokers (never smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their life), 14 'weekly' smokers (at least one per week, but not daily) and 14 daily smokers (at least one per day.)
 
  
Specifically, they measured how long people looked at the warning messages on both plain and branded packs, and the difference in amount of time between the types of packs and the types of smokers.
+
A more serious problem with this study is that it reports its results as being an effect of "salience", which if true, affects low-level, bottom-up visual processes and so should produce similar results in ALL participants, whereas they only find a significant effect for non-smokers and weekly smokers (average of about 8 per week) with NO EFFECT for regular smokers.
  
Participants were instructed that they'd be shown some images in the first phase of the experiment, and would have to indicate whether or not any images presented in the second phase were present in the first.
+
==[[J Padilla & N Watson (2008)]]==
  
The first phase consisted of (randomly) 10 images of plain packs and 10 images of branded packs with 10 warnings (one per type of pack) present and each image was shown for 10 seconds.
+
Commissioned for Phillip Morris International (PMI), by The Law and Economics Consulting Group(LECG) to review previous research on the subject of generic (plain) packaging, largely with regard to teenagers. It concludes that none of those papers reviewed could provide a reliable basis on which to determine if [[standardised packaging]] would reduce smoking levels.
  
The second phase, was 10 images from phase 1, and 10 new images (with each set of 10 having 5 plain and 5 branded packs, and 5 warnings,) and the participants given 5 seconds per image to decide if it was present in phase 1 or not.
+
==[[Department of Health (2008)]]==
 +
Entitled Consultation on the future of tobacco control, aimed at "PCT CEs, NHS Trust CEs, SHA CEs, Foundation Trust CEs, Medical Directors, Directors of PH, Directors of Nursing, Local Authority CEs, Communications Leads," this report came up with a lot of conclusions that contained the words 'may,' 'might,' 'could' and other weasel words.
  
Eye movements were tracked in only the first phase.
+
It was also very selective in quoting parts of other research, while ignoring the parts that contradicted the, perceived, desired outcome for this report.
  
As summarised by the study's titile, they found that the non- and weekly- smokers tended to look at the warning more if the pack was plain than if it was branded.
+
==[[M Goldberg, et al. (1995)]]==
===Problems with the Bristol Study===
+
A report for Health Canada, of teenagers, over 5 different studies, to examine the potential effect [[standardised packaging]] might have on
====The images used====
 
On page 3 of the linked pdf (page '1507' as marked on the pages) there is an image that is described as
 
  
: Figure 1 Examples of branded and plain pack stimuli. Example visual stimuli designed specifically for the purposes of this study are shown. Branded pack images (top) were taken from popular ciga rette brands in the United Kingdom. Plain white pack images (bottom) were taken from an example plain pack created for Action on Smoking and Health (England)
+
*the uptake of smoking to begin with,
  
The image is reproduced here, with the bottom (plain) packet cropped off (but not entirely,) and copied to the right of the branded packet:
+
*the impact on the recognition of, and the ability to remember, the warnings on packaging,
 +
*the probability of stopping smoking
 +
The surveys were largely about what teenagers think they'd do, and not what they'd actually do, with regard to [[standardised packaging]].
  
[[File:Example_packaging.png|Branded and plain packaging]]
 
  
Note that (as apparently presented in the study) the packets are the same width, they are not the same height.
 
====The participants====
 
The number of participants (43, selected by adverts in and round the university campus,) while probably ideal for a feasibility study as to whether more research is needed, is pitifully small for a piece of research on which so many arguments about plain packaging appear to rest.
 
  
Additionally, for those relying on this study arguing for banning branded packaging 'for the sake of the children,' the average ages for the three groups were 23, 24 and 24 (for non-,weekly, daily respectively.) The youngest [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interquartile_range interquartile participant] was 21, the oldest 28.
 
  
The male/female breakdown shows another skew:
+
==References==
{| border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="article-table" style="width: 500px;"
+
{{Reflist}}
|+Participants in the Bristol study
 
! scope="col"|Group
 
! scope="col"|Male
 
! scope="col"|Female
 
|Non smokers
 
|10
 
|5
 
|-
 
|Weekly smokers
 
|9
 
|5
 
|-
 
|Daily smokers
 
|10
 
|4
 
|-
 
|'''Total'''
 
|29
 
|14
 
|}
 
Not that these actual numbers are actually presented in the study - they give percentages (71% of 14 daily smokers were male for example (which is 9.94.))
 
==Royal Holloway, University of London project==
 
While nothing as grand as a 'study' with a published paper such as the University of Bristol study appears to pretend to be, Tim Holmes has been supervising a study by his 3rd year psychology students[http://www.acuity-intelligence.com/?p=951]. In his own words:
 
  
: We invited 59 non-smokers, regular smokers, social smokers (the ones who maybe smoke just on a Friday evening after a couple of drinks) and ex-smokers (who have given up for at least 6 months) to look at examples of 4 different package designs including regular branding, 2 types of picture warning labels and plain packaging. We tracked the participants’ eye-movements using a Tobii X120 eye-tracker, and showed each design with 4 different warning messages for 10 seconds each. We also asked participants to evaluate the risks associated with smoking before and after viewing the 16 packages. Unsurprisingly non-smokers tended to perceive a greater risk from smoking than the other 3 groups and disappointingly there was no change in risk perception as a result of viewing the stimuli.
 
  
: To be honest, our initial hypotheses all related to the picture messages and in the best research tradition returned non-significant results! However, we were surprised to observe two interesting results: the non-smokers looked at the warning messages much less than the other participants, and there was no difference between plain and branded package designs in the amount of time spent looking at the warning message. Now, it’s great that the right people are looking more at the warning message, but if this doesn’t result in an increased risk perception then surely the messages aren’t doing their job! Moreover, if removing the brand identity doesn’t change the way people look at the packets then maybe plain packaging, which will be costly to implement, isn’t the best of ideas.
 
  
[[File:Tim_holmes_branded_plain.jpg|Tim Holmes, Branded vs plain]]
+
[[Category:Research]]
[[Category:studies]]
+
[[Category:Smoking]]

Latest revision as of 11:30, 14 May 2018

Standardised, or 'plain', packaging is intended, according the the anti-smoking proponents, to reduce the number of people (some claims state 'children,' instead of people) taking up smoking because it will "make them less attractive."

Others have pointed out that standardised packaging lowers the existing barriers to counterfeiting by allowing the counterfeiters to not bother too hard with one aspect of making fake cigarettes.

Mexico has recently (Jul 2012) made a request of the Australian government for evidence of the efficacy of standardised packaging [PDF], in particular, back in May 2011:

2. Provide the scientific information available in which Australia determined that plain packaging influences consumer behavior, which will contribute to reduce smoking rates and explain the justification of the technical regulations in terms of the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of article 2 of the TBT Agreement. [1]

However Australia's Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has explicitly stated[PDF] that:

Journalist: Minister, some members of the Opposition say they are keen to reduce the incidence of smoking, but they say you have no proof that this will actually do it.

Nicola Roxon: Well, this is a world first. The sort of proof they're looking for doesn't exist when this hasn't been introduced around the world. We do have research that tests the interest in particular measures, tests whether or not you can make a packet less attractive, whether it makes a person less likely to buy a product. We can't look around the world to see these successes because it hasn't been introduced around the world. [2]

As pointed out elsewhere, querying people on what they think they might do, isn't measuring what they will actually do.

More recently Ms Roxon has stated in August 2012:

"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[3]

Plain Packaging fails in its first year in the UK - May 2018

The Smoking Toolkit Study has found that on a three month rolling average, from December 2017 to March 2018, smoking rates in England were higher than for the same time last year before plain packaging was fully introduced.[4]


In case you are disinclined to believe the tobacco industry's trade association, you can see the source data here. It does indeed show smoking rates falling steadily until early 2017. Thereafter they stop falling and start rising.

This is not quite what we were led to expect, is it? By the end of the first quarter of 2017, plain packaging was ubiquitous if not quite universal. By May 20th, every pack sold had to be 'plain' by law. Moreover, May 20th 2017 was also the date that the EU Tobacco Products Directive came into full force.[5]

The European Journal of Public Health - Apr 2015

A study entitled The association between peer, parental influence and tobacco product features and earlier age of onset of regular smoking among adults in 27 European countries found that when smokers were given up to 3 of 7 factors to chose from which encouraged them to start smoking, namely:

  • your friends smoked (peer influence)
  • your parents smoked (parental influence)
  • you liked the packaging of the cigarettes (or other tobacco products)
  • you liked the taste or smell of tobacco
  • you liked menthol cigarettes
  • you liked cigarettes with a specific sweet, fruity or spicy flavour
  • cigarettes were affordable

so few respondants chose anything after the first two items that..

All other responses were grouped together as ‘tobacco product features’, as the numbers of respondents who indicated each one as an influence were small

Small, indeed. In fact...

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).

[6]

The research itself was

...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)[7]

So, clearly, since such strong evidence against both standardised 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

A review[8] paid for by 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 standardised packaging would be adopted as presented without producing a clear baseline of what would happen should it be found that standardised 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 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 standardised 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

Like many other milestone tobacco-control legislations such as pictorial warnings on tobacco packets, first adopted by Canada in 2001, and workplace smoking bans, first introduced in Ireland in 2004, Australia's lead in plain packaging will inevitably be followed by many other countries. Indeed, the UK, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, India, and South Africa are already considering taking such measures. Furthermore, the valuable lessons learnt in the fight against tobacco can be taken on board in countering the rampant marketing of alcohol and fast food.[9]

Belies the protestations against the slippery slope argument used in the tobacco template.

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

The price of cigarettes would rise to $20 a pack under a Gillard Government proposal that would reap an extra $1.25 billion a year in taxes.

The West Australian understands the Government is considering a 25 per cent rise in tobacco excise that would raise $5 billion over four years.

[...]

The excise increase may be timed to coincide with the introduction of mandatory plain-packaging for tobacco products on December 1.[10]

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 standardised packaging.

To place the cost into perspective, in Feb 2007 a typical packet of 25 cigarettes cost AU$11.25[11] of which $7.03 was tax (both excise and service) (62.5%)

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

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.[12]

Australia plain packaging.jpg[12]

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

In a study that finds it takes longer to drink a poncy French lager if you put it in a straight glass than it would if it was either lager or a soft drink in a fluted glass, they discuss the current state of affairs in the UK with regard to the variety of glasses available in pubs in which drinks may be served:

There may be other potentially modifiable factors which may influence alcohol consumption and drinking rate. These might include marketing signals (i.e., branding), and vehicles for these signals such as the glasses from which beverages are consumed. Legislation to control or limit these signals may therefore influence drinking behaviour. A parallel can be drawn with the tobacco control literature, where plain packaging has been shown to increase visual attention towards health warnings compared with branded packaging in non-smokers and light smokers[13]

Australian Court rules that standardised packaging doesn't infringe IP - 15 Aug 2012

In a case where Tobacco companies went to court to argue that standardised packaging would infringe on the Intellectual Property, Chief Justice Robert decided that

... 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.[14]

UK Department of Health public consultation - petitions handed in before deadline Aug 2012

Over 235,000 signed a petition against standardised packaging organised by Hands off our Packs.[15]

Over 75,000 signed a petition for standardised packaging organised by CRUK.[16]

Roy Ramm, Former Commander of Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard (Jul 2012)

I've had the privilege of commanding the Scotland Yard's Serious and Organised Crime branch and saw clearly how illicit trade in cigarettes and tobacco goes beyond what some might term mere 'petty criminality'. My former colleagues in Northern Ireland and other international law enforcement agencies identified the proceeds of smuggling as an important source of terrorist funding.

[...]

It would be disastrous if the government, by introducing plain-packaging legislation, removes the simplest mechanism for the ordinary consumer to tell whether their cigarettes are counterfeit or not.

[...]

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.[17]

MPs Open Letter[18] to Secratary of State for Health (Jul 2012)

In July 2012, 50 cross-party Members of Parliament signed an open[18] letter to the Secratary of State for Health (Andrew Lansley) pointing out perceived flaws in Plain Packaging, mentioning

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].


... this policy threatens more than 5,500 jobs directly employed by the UK tobacco sector and over 65,000 valued jobs in the associated supply chain.


... we believe products must be afforded certain basic commercial freedoms. The forcible removal of branding would infringe fundamental legal rights, severely damage principles around intellectual property and set a dangerous precedent for the future of commercial free speech. Indeed, if the Department of Health were to introduce standardised packaging for tobacco products, would it also do the same for alcohol, fast food, chocolate and all other products deemed unhealthy for us?

Peter Sheridan, ex-Assistant Chief Constable (Jun 2012)

The fact is, banning cigarette logos might actually make things worse. Plain packets could be a smugglers' charter. I’ve spent most of my working life as a senior police officer in Northern Ireland, where organised crime gangs and terrorist organisations have turned smuggling knock-off fags, jewellery and clothing into a multi-million pound black market business, alongside their prostitution rings and drug running operations.

[...]

...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.[19]

Roger Helmer MEP (May 2012)

Like a disturbing number of other announcements from the government in recent times, [the standardised packaging consultation by the UK government] is worrying from a personal liberty perspective.

There is no question that smoking is a bad for your health. I would recommend that anyone who does smoke stops. However, this doesn’t mean I believe it is justifiable that the state should intervene to remove the intellectual property of a company selling a legal product in a misguided attempt to stigmatise a legal activity.

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.[20]

Suzi Gage (May 2012)

Even second year students, trying to work their way round the intricacies of anti-smoking propaganda still slip up:

Yesterday an article in the Daily Mail was brought to my attention by Ben Goldacre, and Transform Drug Policy Foundation. There have been a few articles along a similar line to this one, questioning tobacco control research and policy. This one seemed particularly one-sided, so it's made me decide to go through the arguments, and discuss. The very first sentence of this article riled me, I have to say:

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.[21]

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:

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 cancer research document on the subject) people start smoking before the age of 19.[21]

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[22], 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[23], 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"[24] but in fact shows that teenagers are remarkably unaware of current packaging, and thus standardised packaging will serve no useful purpose in reducing the likelihood of teenagers taking up smoking.


Borland, Savvas (2012)

An internet survey of only 160 young Australian smokers, for Tobacco Control, were shown different formats of cigarettes differing by shape, patterning of the filter end, and branding concludes, that the format of the cigarettes themselves should be standardised as 'plain' because of the participants' perceptions that branded cigarettes with cork-patterned filters are higher in quality and stronger in taste

London Economics (2012)

The results of surveying 3,000 people on the effects of the removal of various 'product signals' (such as the branding, or other differentiators between brands) on various products (i.e. not just tobacco) suggest that standardised packaging would result in customers buying cheaper brands for lack of any other signals to select brands on. This could result in the average price of cigarettes dropping, and tobacco companies further reducing their prices to maintain market share. Furthermore:

"If greater price competition were to occur (and given the importance of price signals in the marketplace), there may be a possible increase in the level of consumption, especially amongst those individuals with fewer financial resources. Other factors held constant, the removal of all packaging imagery and possible subsequent price falls may also encourage younger people to take up smoking in the first instance."

Royal Holloway, University of London project (2012)

While nothing as grand as a 'study' with a published paper such as the University of Bristol study appears to pretend to be, Tim Holmes has been supervising a study by his 3rd year psychology students[1]. In his own words:

We invited 59 non-smokers, regular smokers, social smokers (the ones who maybe smoke just on a Friday evening after a couple of drinks) and ex-smokers (who have given up for at least 6 months) to look at examples of 4 different package designs including regular branding, 2 types of picture warning labels and plain packaging. We tracked the participants’ eye-movements using a Tobii X120 eye-tracker, and showed each design with 4 different warning messages for 10 seconds each. We also asked participants to evaluate the risks associated with smoking before and after viewing the 16 packages. Unsurprisingly non-smokers tended to perceive a greater risk from smoking than the other 3 groups and disappointingly there was no change in risk perception as a result of viewing the stimuli.
Tim Holmes, Branded vs plain

To be honest, our initial hypotheses all related to the picture messages and in the best research tradition returned non-significant results! However, we were surprised to observe two interesting results: the non-smokers looked at the warning messages much less than the other participants, and there was no difference between plain and branded package designs in the amount of time spent looking at the warning message. Now, it’s great that the right people are looking more at the warning message, but if this doesn’t result in an increased risk perception then surely the messages aren’t doing their job! Moreover, if removing the brand identity doesn’t change the way people look at the packets then maybe plain packaging, which will be costly to implement, isn’t the best of ideas.


Munafò, Roberts, Bauld & Leonards (2011)

A study, by the University of Bristol, on of the eye movements of 43 (either largely or solely) university-age students when presented with images of both branded and plain packs.

Problems with the study include disparity in the size of packs used between branded and standardised packs, and the small number of participants (less than 25 in each of the three cohorts) with a total male/female ratio of 2/1 and what is presumed to be a narrow age range (average age was 23/24.)

A more serious problem with this study is that it reports its results as being an effect of "salience", which if true, affects low-level, bottom-up visual processes and so should produce similar results in ALL participants, whereas they only find a significant effect for non-smokers and weekly smokers (average of about 8 per week) with NO EFFECT for regular smokers.

J Padilla & N Watson (2008)

Commissioned for Phillip Morris International (PMI), by The Law and Economics Consulting Group(LECG) to review previous research on the subject of generic (plain) packaging, largely with regard to teenagers. It concludes that none of those papers reviewed could provide a reliable basis on which to determine if standardised packaging would reduce smoking levels.

Department of Health (2008)

Entitled Consultation on the future of tobacco control, aimed at "PCT CEs, NHS Trust CEs, SHA CEs, Foundation Trust CEs, Medical Directors, Directors of PH, Directors of Nursing, Local Authority CEs, Communications Leads," this report came up with a lot of conclusions that contained the words 'may,' 'might,' 'could' and other weasel words.

It was also very selective in quoting parts of other research, while ignoring the parts that contradicted the, perceived, desired outcome for this report.

M Goldberg, et al. (1995)

A report for Health Canada, of teenagers, over 5 different studies, to examine the potential effect standardised packaging might have on

  • the uptake of smoking to begin with,
  • the impact on the recognition of, and the ability to remember, the warnings on packaging,
  • the probability of stopping smoking

The surveys were largely about what teenagers think they'd do, and not what they'd actually do, with regard to standardised packaging.



References

  1. File:Mexico plain packaging.pdf
  2. File:Roxon press conference may 2011.pdf
  3. http://www.insideretail.com.au/IR/IRNews/Plain-packs-wont-hurt-5693.aspx
  4. Plain packaging failing one year after full introduction - Tobacco Manufacturers' Association
  5. Plain packaging failing in the UK - Velvet Glove, Iron Fist
  6. Packaging doesn't make people start smoking - study - Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog
  7. 4,442 Reasons Why Plain Packaging Won't Work - Dick Puddlecote blog]]
  8. Selecting the Evidence - Rupert Darwall
  9. Australia's plain tobacco packaging - The Lancet
  10. Tax rise will cost smokers a packet - Yahoo News
  11. Tobacco taxes in Australia - Tobacco in Australia
  12. a b Tobacco sales in Australia since plain packaging - IEA
  13. Glass Shape Influences Consumption Rate for Alcoholic Beverages - PLoS ONE
  14. Big tobacco says plain packs are bad - Sky News
  15. Over 235,000 petition against plain packaging - Hands Off Our Packs!
  16. More than 75,000 Cancer Research UK supporters want to ban tobacco branding - CRUK
  17. Government Plans for Plain Packaging Will Boost Illicit Trade - Huffington Post
  18. a b Open Letter (to the Secretary of State for Health) - Scribd
  19. Plans for plain packaging of cigarettes are a charter for organised crime and a danger to our children - Daily Mail
  20. Plain packaging? Plain nonsense - The Commentator
  21. a b Tobacco Control, Plain Packaging, and Media Misinformation - Sifting the Evidence blog on SciLogs WebCite archive
  22. Smoking statistics - CRUK
  23. Suzi Gage's profile - Nature Network
  24. Designer packs being used to lure new generation of smokers - The Independant