An example selection of currently available tobacco packs
The 2010 film The King’s Speech was a national triumph. So at Cancer Research UK we’re dismayed to have to report that we’re not exactly rolling out the red carpet for yesterday’s Queen’s Speech.
In fact, quite the opposite.
The Queen’s Speech – which outlined the Government’s focus for the next year – has, shockingly, left plans to put tobacco products in plain, standardised packaging, on the cutting room floor.
The government has thus failed to deliver on a policy that would help protect children from a product that has no s
afe level of consumption.
So today, nine months since its consultation closed in August 2012, we’re left hanging, still waiting for the government to make a clear statement of its intentions.
In that time more than 150,000 children have started smoking – the beginning of an addiction that kills half its long-term users.
In light of this disappointing decision, we wanted to outline, clearly and simply, which organisations support this measure. Also we thought it worth exposing the vested interests of its opponents. This is all worth knowing, because this fight isn’t over; this is not “The End”.
A quick recap
Along with scores of other health organisations, Cancer Research UK has been campaigning for new laws to put all tobacco products in plain, standardised packs.
This isn’t about discouraging current smokers. It’s about discouraging children from starting – something the evidence shows standard packs will be effective in doing. This is because tobacco packs are the last remaining ‘public space’ left for the tobacco industry to advertise their brands.
As you might expect, the tobacco industry has vehemently opposed this idea – opposition that flies in the face of widespread support from across society.
On the one hand…
Protecting the public health of its citizens should be a top priority for any government.
There is clear support for standardised tobacco packs from the public, and from the public health and welfare community at both national and international levels.
Let’s look at who’s backing the campaign:
- 63 per cent of UK adults support removing all branding from cigarette packs, with just 16 per cent opposed.
- More than 200,000 people support standard packs campaigns – 80,000 of which showed their support through Cancer Research UK’s campaign.
- 190 health and welfare organisations support standard packs. These include Royal Medical Colleges, the British Medical Association and charities such as the British Heart Foundation.
- 85 per cent of people back government action to reduce the number of young people who start smoking.
The World Health Organisation is clear that marketing of tobacco products “encourages current smokers to smoke more, decreases their motivation to quit, and urges youth to start” – and make no mistake, the branding on cigarette packs is marketing.
Our standard packs campaign was a Mumsnet feature campaign in 2012 because parents believe it is important to protect their children from tobacco marketing.
The Trading Standards Institute, EU anti-fraud office representative and Greater Manchester’s Police and Crime Commissioner have dismissed tobacco industry claims that standard packs will increase the illicit trade.
…but on the other:
In keeping with years of deceit about the deadly harms and addictiveness of their products, the tobacco industry has financed a number of third-party organisations to oppose the policy.
Throughout their opposition to standard packs, industry and pro-tobacco groups have relied on facts and figures drawn from several key sources, leaving the declaration of vested interests for others to discover. So here are just a few:
- KPMG have produced several reports that claim the illicit tobacco trade is growing: these reports were paid for by the world’s largest tobacco company, Philip Morris International. But they contradict the Government’s own figures.
- Transcrime have also produced reports on the illicit tobacco trade: these are also funded by Philip Morris, and report strikingly similar findings
- The Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest), are a pro-smoking group that has opposed any legislation intended to reduce smoking rates: they are supported by British American Tobacco (BAT), Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and Imperial Tobacco.
- Forest has, in turn, used their own single-issue front-group Hands Off Our Packs (HOOPS) to oppose standard packs: they receive the same veiled support from BAT, JTI and Imperial tobacco.
- The Intellectual Property (IP) firm, Rouse, have written articles which look at the implications for brands’ intellectual property: last week the firm amended their client list, removing Japan International Tobacco, but helpfully staff biographies list tobacco clients among them.
- The Common Sense Alliance includes many members who have spoken out against standard packs: among them, former-police officers who had given evidence to the House of Lords. The Observer reported the Common Sense Alliance is funded by BAT – something the former officers failed to declare.
In July 2012, JTI announced that they would be committing £2m to a campaign opposing standard packs, placing several adverts in national publications throughout and beyond the consultation period. To date the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that two separate ads are “misleading” and “unsubstantiated”.
A quick note on smuggling: one of the most persistent and widely aired myths in the industry’s campaign. As we heard from a current Trading Standards Officer on this very blog, “plain packs won’t encourage smuggling”.
The illicit cigarette market has been falling since its peak in the early 2000s, yet the tobacco industry claims the illicit trade is ‘booming’ (which a parliamentary report noted is “contrary to the available statistics”).
Even their representatives (the Tobacco Manufacturers Association) accept that the consumption of illicit tobacco in the UK is falling.
When you look at the whole package, this collaboration, and extent of this deception is like something out of a Hollywood script.
What happens next?
Although the Government missed the chance to announce standard packs in the Queen’s speech, there are still opportunities to introduce standard packs legislation in this session and let Parliament decide.
So we need to move fast. Email your MP today and ask them to do the right thing: introduce standardised cigarette packs and put the health of our children ahead of tobacco industry profits.
If all of us stand united in the fight against cancer, our voices will be louder and clearer than any campaign the tobacco industry can mount.
The irony of it all
The irony of this all is that shiny and glamorous branded tobacco packets are the perfect metaphor for the tobacco industry’s tactics throughout this campaign.
Their reports and websites look the part; they slap a logo on them, and spend huge amounts to promote them, to as wide an audience as possible. But when you open the page, much like opening a pack of cigarettes, all you find inside is a toxic concoction that flatters to deceive.
It is easy to be frustrated, agitated and angry with the government’s failure to back up a commitment to reducing preventable mortality, by ignoring a measure that will reduce the appeal of an addiction that causes one in every four cancer deaths in the UK.
In this regal speech, which laid out this government priorities, it appears that a supporting cast of tobacco industry proxies have won the day.
This stuttering progress can be overcome, and we will urge the government to ignore the profit-driven interests of the tobacco industry, and instead move to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
Ultimately, we think this is a policy for which they would be celebrated, resonating with the assured words of King George VI that ‘the highest of distinctions is service to others’.
Chris
- Chris Woodhall is a tobacco control officer at Cancer Research UK
Comments
Cancer Research UK May 9, 2013
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.
PJ May 9, 2013
Andy m- you are quite right in what you say but who are the biggest advertisers of tobacco since July 1st 2007? Answer:- all the anti tobacco agencies clamouring to be the first to ban this, that or the other!
Smoking is already6 going ‘underground’ as people are shunning the pubs and hosting drinky/smoky’s in their own properties thus ignoring the pubs! How many thousands of businesses have closed in the past 6 years, how many thousands of people have been rendered unemployed and how many £millions has this silly and illiberal law cost this country so far?
All that was ever needed was choice, that would have been the democratic way of doing things but no, oh no, the anti tobacco lot had to go full tilt and create prohibition.
Now, for CROOK sorry CRUK who state that every penny of public donations goes directly to research: why is it then that they funded the PP campaign giant hoardings in the Sth West to the tune of £468.000?
As this was a blatant lie, just how many other lies can be uncovered I wonder? After receiving £433,000,000 who knows what is being creamed off for various purposes?
Veronica Boyce-Stevens May 9, 2013
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.
PJ May 9, 2013
There is a complete lack of evidence regarding PP being ‘ a good move’. Australia are trying it but so far sales have not diminished although it has caused anohter, much smaller company to create thousands more ‘packet stickers’ to cover the rubbish that is now plastered all over their cigarette packets!
When i was a child the colours of all those cigarette packets didn’t ‘force’ me to try them out! Some kids are born to be smokers and some are not, simple as that. My father, when he smoked, smoked a very plain, dull coloured brand, it was his choice!
The PP campaign is simply another step by campaigners to remove people’s human right of choice and has now involved Cuba in the legal fight-which they should win, unless of course the law has been completely corrupted by this anti tobacco hysteria?
It is very interesting to note that most people now say it is for the “Chiiildren” or the “next generation” because with all the claims of tobacco reduction, and smoking cessation it seems very strange that (apparently) another 150,000 children have taken up smoking-so the answer is, quite simply, ban tobacco altogether!
David Collins May 9, 2013
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
Kirsten Roche May 9, 2013
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!
george speller May 9, 2013
Not used to losing are you?
Sarah Rose May 9, 2013
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.
Andy M. May 9, 2013
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.
Rosa Macpherson May 9, 2013
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?
PJ May 9, 2013
Ross Mac:so you think that you are the only one? I watched my father die too-and he’d given up smoking for thirty years but they said ‘it was the fags that done him’-what utter rubbish, he was over 70, in poor health and couldn’t cope with yet another operation!
I have seen countless cancer victims that have never touched a cigarette, do yopu blame tobacco for all those cancers too?
You say, “Tobacco smoking kills one out of every two long term users.” well here’s the news: 100% of all people die sooner or later!
You say, “It is a poison that 200,000 children are encouraged to draw into their lungs every year” well here’s some more news: 500,000 babies born every year are subjected to dirty, filthy, highly toxic exhaust fumes as soon as they venture into the outside world-how many pushchairs & buggies etc are at exhaust pipe level and how much of that toxic muck gets straight into their tiny, developing lungs-probably 10-12 years before they even think about trying a cigarette!
As for my children? Well, much to your obvious distaste they were allowed to grow up with the adult attitude that it is their body therefore it is their choice! They were warned about the dangers of drugs and the effects, not to mention the unsavoury characters that suppliued them, they were warned about the dangers of alcohol and also the dangers of smoking although having watched so many of our relatives die from one form of cancer or another and none of them being smokers seems to negate your abhorrence of “The pleasant and enjoyable past time of drawing on a fag” – which it obviously is to some!
Andy M-your argument is completely baseless. If tobacco is such a biog killer then why not simply ban it altogether-and motor vehicles & milk & coffee & red meat & red wine &…………………………………… get my drift?
Cancer Research UK May 9, 2013
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.
David May 9, 2013
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?
PJ May 9, 2013
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?
Mike Ridgway May 9, 2013
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 !!
TTR May 9, 2013
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!