A sad day for public health – standard packs and the path ahead

Why on earth does anyone think that A PACKET makes someone want to do it – ’tis the fricking parents – I am one of those fricking parents who smoked in 1965 at the age of 10 because my parents did – 2 out of my 3 children smoke SO – NOTHING TO DO WITH SODDING PACKAGING – I smoked thru’ all 3 pregnancies – I didn’t know it was crap in those days – no-one was told – my daughter knows now that she a) has to give up and b) especially before she gets pregnant xxxxx OK we have been told, but it has destroyed all the pubs in the land – Isn’t anyone else fed up with being told how to live their lives?????

@ JDR on May 10, 2013 at 8:49 pm.

“Smoking in the UK kills more people than overdoses, murder, road accidents, suicide and HIV put together and causes 4 out of 5 lung cancer cases.”

No it does not.

There…. You see? Your statement is as easily denied as it is stated.
Where is your physical proof that smoking causes any disease at all? There simply is none. If you say that epidemiological studies prove your statement, then you should read up about the McTear versus Imperial Tobacco Case in Scotland (ended 2005). There, Tobacco Control had every opportunity to bring their evidence before the court. They failed to do so. In fact, they were invited to do so but refused.

I read somewhere that 80% of people with lung cancer were non smokers. I’ve no idea whether that is true.

I do remember an American doctor on the news some years ago, saying that because of the emphasis on smoking, it was difficult to find out what caused lung cancer in non smokers.

In a stratified study of 76,000 mineworkers published last year, of which 49% were smokers, the incidence of lung cancer was found to be 7 x greater in non-smokers

I will have a bet with you right now, if you’ll take it. I suggest £100 but you can raise that if you like.

You are using out-of-date government figures for your assertion that illicit trade isn’t increasing. I expect politicians already know the true *current* figures which is why they have recently held their first parliamentary enquiry into the subject.

So, my bet is that when figures are finally presented by the ONS or any other govt institution (there is always a lag), that they will prove there has been a dramatic rise in illicit since last year’s budget. To win the bet for you, there only needs to be a stagnation or a reduction.

So, how much money are you willing to back up your campaigning rhetoric with? ;)

Let’s put a health warning on everything it’ s about time we starting making decisions for our selves, there are so many things that affect our health, let’s make parents responsible for their children and not the state a waste of advertising and money. Be Resonsible for your own actions for once in your life

JDR makes a very important point in that CRUK is a real charity that relies on donations. However it is generally true that it does not make clear at point of donation that donors money may be used for political purposes or siphoned off to pay the likes of Deborah Arnott. I personally view that as dishonest.

It doesn’t matter that only a small percentage of donations are used for advocacy. If that advocacy associates CRUK with a dirty authoritarian political campaign it tarnishes everyone associated with the charity including the talented researchers who actually do something useful.

Good to see you have ignored the part about you being wrong about government funding!

OK simply… Smoking in the UK kills more people than overdoses, murder, road accidents, suicide and HIV put together and causes 4 out of 5 lung cancer cases. Cancer Research UK have never said that smoking causes all cancers! You are just completely exaggerating/twisting anything that they do say! Before you comment on here please at least get your facts right. Also it would be great if you could upload this letter you have in front of you, seeing as the website is quite clear about what happens to donations… 80% of each £1 goes to research the rest is used on information nurses, a help line and lobbying policies THAT SUPPORT THE AIM TO BEAT CANCER! They do amazing research without which many people including myself would not be alive today.

If you loath the work of a charity trying to beat cancer and bring hope to millions of people, then don’t come on the website, don’t dedicate so much time to replying on their posts there are plenty of pro tobacco pages for you and your pals.

PJ CR-UK don’t receive any government funding, and the large majority of money is spent on research, with a small amount being used for information nurses, a help line and lobbying policies THAT SUPPORT THE AIM TO BEAT CANCER! you can read more about it here since i’m sure you wouldn’t want to misquote would you?!

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/our-finances/

But Gina………… The packaging issue IS PART of CRUK’s education incentive!
I firmly believe in the proverb uttered by a Chinese educationalist many years ago……… “I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand.” And… before anyone shoots me down in flames….. I hasten to add that I’m NOT advocating that kids try smoking so that they will understand how bad it is for them, so much as the fact that non-smoking youngsters will hopefully be fascinated by, and handle and absorb, the messages on the packets of their parents, friends, or relatives! :-) Nothing ventured, nothing gained, eh? :-)
CRUK……. Is an online petition worth considering, or has it been done already?
– Andrew.

If CRUK had an effective education policy in place, the packaging issue would be irrelevant.
Tackling the obsession with fast food, sugary drinks plus the addictive lure of alcohol, smoking and drugs are key.

Youngsters need self respect and self awareness to form a positive choice. They follow bad habits initiated by adults.

Informative education and more positive role models would help. Encouraging a healthier lifestyle needs to be more appealing to youngsters. Opportunities for activities need to be affordable and interesting.

Some will choose to smoke etc, but provided with the right type of venues, with activities, offering affordable good food choices might just keep others distracted.

There’s an enormous amount of valuable experience from around the world of different types of tobacco regulation. Why won’t the health lobby do proper scientific research into what works and what doesn’t? Instead, they seem much more interested in enagaging in a virility contest to get the most hyperactive and draconian measures enacted. The lack of any interest in researching the impact of existing measures such as graphical health warnings, smoking bans and punitive taxation is staggering and really makes you wonder whether these people really care about health outcomes. Its very sad that organisations like CRUK have become highjacked by campaigning zealots when resources could be better deployed on bringing new insight into the causes and cancer and how to prevent it. Regarding plain packaging, ‘an attitude survey of five teenagers from Glasgow’ is no evidence basis for a policy with such far-reaching collateral risk (illict trade, etc).

These packets would not have been plain would they? They would have been covered with vile, disgusting graphic images. Think of the children. I don’t think so. How distressing do you think would these images would be for children, but then I think they’re meant to distress, children and smokers.

Packaging has no influence on wanting to smoke/start smoking. I say that from personal experience.
I was 15 when I started smoking properly and that was because my group of friends at the time were smoking. I thought it was the “cool” thing to do. I didn’t walk into a shop one day, look at the packaging of cigarettes and immediately want to buy them. In fact when I was younger than 15, I was terrified to try a cigarette (my mother used to smoke) because how can inhaling smoke be any good for you? Young people aren’t stupid.
If smoking is such a huge health problem, then why is it still legal? The government only care about the huge tax they slap on the price tag and yet they get away with it because smoking is an addiction, not a choice.
Nicotine is the real problem – forget packaging.

I see that the same old propaganda phrases are being trotted out over and over again.
It is blatantly obvious that the PP objective was to damage tobacco companies and nothing else. I have no connection with tobacco companies and do not give a toss about them, but they do provide WHAT PEOPLE WANT and provide a lot of jobs both directly and indirectly. I do wish that the Tobacco Control Monopoly would stop the ‘for the children’ racket. Children have no interest in cigarettes – period. They like sweeties.
The author of this article must know very well that the Tobacco Control Industry have NEVER defined the word ‘children’. Also, it constantly, and deliberately, lumps together the words ‘children’ and ‘young people’, as though ‘young people’ were children. But the TCI more and more class ‘young people’ as up to the age of 25!
The propaganda lies and spin of the Tobacco Control Industry (which has been providing a very lucrative living for many a charlatan for some years) are gradually being seen for what they are.
Finally, why did the Tobacco Control Industry not produce PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer in the McTear Case?

I’m sorry, not all Cancer’s are caused by smoking, Smoking should be about “choice”, Cancer Research UK, please research cancer cure’s, and not wast time and money on things such as plain packaging. No government will ever ban the sale of tobacco. Children now all they have to do is to walk down the street and, YES, the’ll see people smoking so all this anti smoking nonsense will have very little or no effect on children starting smoking, in a nutshell if people are going to start smoking the’ll start, end of.

I fully support this campaign and the evidence I have reviewed is totally compelling. My 12 year old daughter is undoubtedly a prime target for tobacco manufacturers…remember over 200,000 children as young as 11 start smoking every year. Branded packs convey the brands personality and allow the tobacco industry to target specific audiences and kids are particularly susceptible. I wonder what the target audiance is for the “extra long, slim, white cigarettes, with flowery purple twists, in a long square box shaped like lipstick”? Go figure……While JTI would never admit that 12-17 girls were part of the target audience for this particular brand, it doesn’t take a genius to work it out (remember 8 out of 10 smokers start by the age of 19). Cigarette packaging is critical to tobacco manufacturers in attracting new smokers – that is why they are fighting this tooth and nail, but I for one will not give up in campaigning for standardised packs. My father died of lung cancer and, having started smoking at 13 myself and only managing to quit at 40, introducing plain packs and giving my daughter and thousands of other kids one less reason to start is just a no brainer.

@CRUK
“The validity of the figure of 500,000 people who aren’t in favour of plain packs is far from clear.”

Are you still trying to claim that your only opponents are part of a tobacco company conspiracy? I think that you will find that the DH backpedalled on that issue but of course, you only ever mention the parts of the story that support your cause.

Unsurprisingly you fail to mention the fact that the validity of the much smaller petitions in support of “plain” packs was more convincingly questioned following the publication of correspondence in which tobacco control activists urged supporters to sign multiple petitions and therefore potentially defraud a government consultation.

This selective view of events and the ridiculous pseudoscientific claims do CRUK no favours. Even if you “win” eventually it will still be a sad day for CRUK because there is little genuine public support for what you are doing and its Orwellian overtones are beginning to ring alarm bells amongst many people who have no links whatsoever with tobacco companies. Constantly trying to smear and censor opponents is a trademark of authoritarian regimes and it would appear public health industry activists. I find it sickening and hope that many others do to.

For those who think they no better about the illicit trade …..just look at the the letter in The Times from 20 plus senior police officers from June last year …..the criminal involvement in the cigarette illicit trade is enormous …How many criminals are on the most wanted list from UK law enforcement agencies?..Answer …a very high percentage !!…forget the Border Agency and Trading Standards…they have no resource ….and this is the issue ….once onto the market and sales take place from car boot sales and pub car parks etc etc ….THERE IS NO CONTROL ….and the criminals will sell to anybody ….especially to children……GROW UP CR- UK ….and focus on the real issue of what is needed and improved …like better education and cultural awareness about the perils of smoking …..and NOT regulation that will not work!!..Mike 19

As a marketeer I’m well aware of the opportunity packaging provides as a tool to create perceptions amongst consumers. Tobacco packaging is no different to other consumer products. For those who’ve commented on standard packs removing individuals’ liberties, just remember, the objective of this legislation is to reduce the number of kids who begin smoking. It is NOT to take away liberties from adults who currently smoke.

* Sorry, the above should ready ‘a total ban on cigarette displays’

It is misguided to say that plain packaging will have no impact. For those referencing Australia, it has not been in place long enough to make any conclusive results.
With no ability to advertise, and soon a total on cigarette displays, packaging is the last opportunity tobacco companies have to display their brand in any meaningful way.
Brands are what organisations use to establish some sort of emotional connection between product / service and their audience. If tobacco companies didn’t care that much, this battle would not still be raging.

It was a sad day for CRUK when it took in ASH and became a political organisation. It is not possible to associate with dishonest fanatics for any length of time without it having some impact. The “plain” packaging campaign was a vanity project from the beginning and those CRUK donors who were not brainwashed by the enormous volumes of junk that polluted the CRUK brand during it must be thinking twice about associating with any organization capable of wasting so much of its time and their money on such a tawdry piece of political grandstanding. I have not donated since the campaign began in earnest and will not do so until I see some sort of contrition from those who allowed this to happen. I will recommend that others do likewise.

So this is what you guys do with the money raised under the guise of cancer research? What don’t you spend the cash for the scientists in the labs as opposed to these useless campaigns wasting donations? We don’t need plain packaging. There is no longer no advertising on big billboard or television. There are no huge Marlboro F1 cars going round tracks, or sponsored Embassy world snooker championships anymore. Smoking is banned in public places. People are aware enough of the dangers of cigarette smoking – those who do it, will do it regardless. Packaging makes no difference and yes I think will encourage counterfeit products. Just spend our donations more wisely please.

PJ by banning something you will merely force it underground….American prohibition of alcohol? How many bootleg and moonshine distilleries surfaced when it was outlawed?

Cancer Research UK should focus on RESEARCH into the prevention and cure of CANCER rather than self-serving political campaigns. In the case of tobacco regulation, research might lead to EVIDENCE and that would be a good basis for policy. I’m afraid the arguments for plain packaging have been characterised by noisy propaganda, vilification of opponents and outright dishonesty about the evidence and potential consequences and have been all the less convincing for that!

Thanks for the comments – we just want to respond to a couple of points ‘PJ’ made earlier.

The validity of the figure of 500,000 people who aren’t in favour of plain packs is far from clear. Department of Health Officials have raised concerns about how legitimate this number is after they witnessed how one of the collectors was gathering signatures.

On the point of who objects to plain packaging, some police officers have indeed opposed the measure. But The Trading Standards Institute (responsible for enforcing laws on fake goods and stopping the sale of counterfeit products), an expert from the EU anti-fraud office, and police involved in reducing tobacco smuggling in the North of England all say that the introduction of standardised packaging is likely to have little or no significant impact on the level of illicit trade. Just recently the Greater Manchester’s Police and Crime Commissioner gave his strong support for standardised packs.

‘Premature cancer mortality’ is a term used as a health indicator to define the number of cancer deaths before the age of 75.

Smoking remains the biggest single cause of preventable mortality and morbidity in the world. Without question, it causes ill health and shortens lives. Living in a city or near a main road is not going to affect your risk of lung cancer much if you already smoke. A large amount of research has shown that tobacco smoke is far more dangerous than air pollution. Tobacco smoke causes around 85% of lung cancer cases in the UK, making it by far the biggest cause of the disease. Compared to this, air pollution causes only a small proportion of cases.

Nicotine is a stimulant, not a relaxant – the relaxation comes from relief of addiction. Nicotine is as addictive as heroin or cocaine so unfortunately that relief is very hard to achieve for smokers hooked on a product that will kill half of its long-term users

We are absolutely committed to reducing the burden of cancer and preventing children from starting smoking is vital. We believe, and the evidence supports us in this, that plain, standardised packaging of tobacco products will help achieve this.

Focusing time and effort on this issue may be misplaced. As Mike Ridgway points out, there is a lack of evidence regarding plain packaging. A colleague and I undertook a small study of young people and smoking a few years ago, and it was clear that their reasons for taking up the habit were complex. The two things that stood out were peer pressure, and role modelling of smoking as a tool for stress management and emotion regulation by the adults around them. I took up smoking at the age of 13 (I’m now a non-smoker) and I believe plain packaging would not have made any difference to my decision. I think a better direction to go in would be to invest in robust and in-depth research into the reasons why young people take up smoking, and then into encouraging the Government to invest in implementing interventions that will address the real issues.

I have supported this campaign from the start. And will continue to do so until the last method tobacco companies have to market their killer addictive product to children is removed. The evidence that packaging is attractive to children is just as overwhelming as the evidence that tobacco products will lead to the premature death of half it’s long term users. I’m not anti smoker I’m anti tobacco, there’s a big difference. producing and selling tobacco is a commercial choice.The vast majority of smokers are addicted to nicotine and for them smoking is no longer the free choice pro tobacco supporters would have people believe. It’s not particularly surprising that many pro tobacco supporters state that the are non smokers. Unless they have seen the effects of an addiction on the decision making of the addicts, how could they possibly understand. This campaign is not over. The evidence is clear and we must continue to put the health of the next generation before the profits of legalised addictive drug dealers. https://action.cancerresearchuk.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=149&ea.campaign.id=16993

I used to be somewhat sceptical about the benefits of plain packaging until I understood two things; firstly this is targeted at stopping children from smoking – as a child I vividly recall seeing my cousin smoking a packet of YSL branded cigarettes and thinking it was one of the most glamorous things I had ever seen. Children are easily seduced by packaging and if this legislation stops even one child from being tempted to smoke because of a misguided belief that it is glamorous or cool then surely it is worth it.
Second was when I actually looked at how packaging is used to deceive the consumer, this is strongly apparent in the packaging for menthol cigarettes. The use of white and pastels on these packets create an impression that they are light and less bad for you – not loaded with tar and toxins. I am glad that I live in Scotland where the decision has already been taken to introduce plain packets!

Not used to losing are you?

If you want to enjoy your fag, that’s up to you. The introduction of plain standard packaging won’t change your options. What it WILL do is reduce the number of children who take up smoking every year.

As responsible adults, don’t we all want to protect the children?? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the tobacco industry is fighting so hard against this – they know it will reduce the number of new smokers just as much as CR-UK do.

Plain standard packs have been introduced elsewhere already, it is only a matter of time before it is introduced in England too, but the government should get their finger out and do it sooner rather than later. Delay is damaging peoples lives.

If packaging wasn`t so profitable and lucrative in luring young impressionable kids into a lifetime habit which , if used as directed will kill half of them, why do they
A;spend millions on designs…
.B:spend more millions defending them.
Standard packing was never meant to stop adults who choose to smoke, the intent was to give millions of kids one less reason to start.
The argument about counterfeiting doesn`t hold either, as the packs already have to conceal sophisticated marks to prove whether duty etc has been paid, or even if they are the correct product. Packs are easy enough to copy given a half decent printer anyway, hence the need for covert markings.

The pleasant and enjoyable past time of drawing on a fag”! I drew on thousands of fags over the years and it gave me cancer. It could have killed me, Smoking killed my father who developed gangrene, suffered amputations as his body decayed and rotted through ” drawing on fags’. Tobacco smoking kills one out of every two long term users. It is a poison that 200,000 children are encouraged to draw into their lungs every year. Half of them will die from it. Freedom to poison our children? Freedom to make billions of pounds by poisoning our children. Your idea of freedom Sir or Madam is seriously amiss. You are sensible enough not to become a tobacco addict. Would you be happy to watch your child become one? legally? And through the tricks and trades of the Tobacco profiteers?

Hi Mike, there’s plenty of evidence that plain packs make tobacco less attractive to children – it’s provided through the links in the article. But just in case you missed it, you can find it here.

Regarding your claims that that plain packs would open up supply of tobacco to children “via unregulated sources and criminal activities”, I’m afraid we disagree. And so, too, do the Trading Standards Office – have a look at what they have to say about the matter.

When a former Director of ASH UK, Clive Bates, describes CRC as “unscientific and unethical” in a letter to Linda McAvan MEP (www.clivebates.com entry for 7 May 2013) do you take pause for thought?

Chris Woodhall fails to inform his acolytes and followers at large that over 500,000 free thinking human beings voted AGAINST plain packaging-much to the corrupted anti-tobacco organisations chagrin! He also fails to state that police officers of all ranks objected to PP on the grounds that smuggling/counterfeiting would be rapidly enhanced. He also fails to inform the world at large that hundreds of vital jobs would be lost-but then that wouldn’t matter would it, people could simply die from boredom!
What people like Woodhall need to realise is that 100% of all people die, it is up to them when that event occurs and could Woodhall please state how a “premature death” is obtained-considering no one is born with a time stamp on their person?
If “Protecting the public health of its citizens should be a top priority for any government.” is indeed the top p[riority then why are all forms of motor vehicles still on the roads causing all sorts of disgraceful toxicity that affects tiny lungs long before any cigarette is thought about? Governments top priority is to ensure that the people have jobs to go to so as to be able to afford a decent standard of living-unfortunately Woodhall has allowed his hatred of all products tobacco to cloud his judgement.
Smoking(?) I don’t but millions enjoy the pleasant & relaxing pastime of ‘drawing on a fag’ and as SHS has proven to be harmless why have government and all the little anti smoking tribesmen & women been allowed to waste nearly £500,000 on this ridiculous assault on people’s freedoms?

Your article fails to address the lack of evidence regarding plain packaging and is your biggest argument weakness….in addition it is a good day for child protection…..plain packaging would have opened up supply of tobacco to children via unregulated sources and criminal activities linked to this ……the UK packaging has been at the forefront of fighting plain packaging….BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THE PROCESSES AND CR-UK DO NOT !! Why don’t you direct your efforts to providing better information to children and educational support as they have done in Germany with far better results than regulation on packaging upon which there is no evidence that it works!!!….Also Germany has no display ban ; no vending ; machine ban and no overall smoking ban!!

CR-UK needs to re direct its efforts !!